Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o' Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

General Certificate (Examination)

Mr. Symonds: asked the Minister of Education if in 1951 there will be a second examination for the general certificate of education in December, to enable candidates to sit for it who will be under 16 years of age on 1st September of that year but who will have reached the age of 16 by 1st January, 1952.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): I: understand that four of the eight approved examining bodies intend, with the concurrence of the Secondary School Examinations Council, to offer a second examination for the general certificate of education in 1951, mainly at the ordinary level. It will, however, be available only for candidates of 16 years of age or more on 1st September, 1951.

Mr. Symonds: Will my right hon. Friend give second thoughts to the possibility of adjusting the qualifying age to suit the later date of examination? Is he aware that a boy reaching the age of 16 early in September will either have to stay at school another whole year or else take the examination after the leaving age and that that, of course, would be most unsatisfactory? Will he try to avoid over-rigidity in this matter?

Mr. Tomlinson: I will certainly look at it again. I have looked at it at least half a dozen times.

Mr. Symonds: In order to give my right hon. Friend an opportunity of having second thoughts about this matter I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment.

Films (Distribution)

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Minister of Education what Government organisations distribute films for use in schools; what is the amount of the grant towards providing films for schools; and what means exist of giving advice on the type of film meriting distribution.

Mr. Tomlinson: The Educational Foundation for Visual Aids, which was set up for the purpose of distributing films to educational institutions, is not a Government organisation, but receives a loan from the Exchequer. No grant is available towards providing films, but the Foundation devotes such part of its income as it can afford towards the cost of sponsoring them. The National Committee on Visual Aids in Education is available to give advice on the type of film suitable for use in educational institutions.

Major Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whether the National committee is available or not, it is in fact never consulted, and that this organisation the Educational Foundation is a law unto itself? Is he aware that there are at least some people who feel very strongly that this body is not entirely impartial in the type of film it distributes to schools, and will he therefore look into the matter, particularly as regards the impartiality of the organisation?

Mr. Tomlinson: I will certainly look at it, if there is that feeling.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Is it not the case that if the hon. and gallant Member for Eastern Renfrew (Major Lloyd) would consult his hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) who sits on the Educational Foundation his hon. Friend would tell him that every statement he has made is completely inaccurate?

Horton Lodge, Leek

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Minister of Education if agreement has now been reached about the future use of Horton Lodge, Rudyard, Leek, as a special school for delicate children.

Mr. Tomlinson: In the absence of agreement between the parties concerned, a statutory local inquiry has been held.
I have accepted the recommendation of the report of the inquiry and have approved the proposal of the Stoke-on-Trent local education authority in preference to that of the county authority.

Mr. Davies: Does this mean that the inquiry that my right hon. Friend set up has come to the conclusion that the needs of the City of Stoke-on-Trent are greater than those of the county in this matter?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir, I think that that inference can be drawn.

Handicapped Pupils (Accommodation)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Education how many special boarding schools for handicapped pupils, and homes, hostels and training centres for them after leaving these schools have been opened in the last four years; how many children have been admitted; how many more will be catered for in the next year; and if he will consider arranging for assistance regarding training fees after these children leave school.

Mr. Tomlinson: Since 1st January, 1946, 53 boarding special schools, exclusive of hospital schools, have been opened, with accommodation for 3,300 pupils, and I estimate that 30 more, with accommodation for about 1,500 pupils, will be provided by the end of 1950. During the same period, 39 new boarding homes with accommodation for 917 pupils have been approved. No new training centres for handicapped persons have been provided under the Education Acts, and no additional provision is expected next year. The training facilities provided by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, are available for handicapped pupils when they leave school.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Gentleman say if he is taking special care to see that children who have been trained at these special schools are given some priority at the centres, because at the present time many of them are going back to rather unsuitable homes or to institutions and are not being enabled to take full advantage of the education they received?

Mr. Tomlinson: We are doing our best to help them in all instances. I know that there are difficulties, due to the places where they reside. Wherever possible we get them into touch with the facilities.

Medical Students (Grants)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Education whether grants can be extended a further six months for ex-Service medical students who have qualified, and whose grants stop on qualifying, in order to enable them to take on a resident post in hospital which is an essential part of medical education.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir. My Department is prepared to consider extending, for a period of six months in the first instance, an award under the Further Education and Training Scheme to a medical student appointed to a resident post in order to supplement his salary if the circumstances justify it.

Mr. Gallacher: May I thank the Minister for that very generous answer? I am sure that he is aware that very many students in hospitals will be satisfied with the decision.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend that principle to prospective teachers who take their university degree in June and cannot get a post in a school until September?

Mr. Tomlinson: There is a slight difference between an individual who is waiting for a post in a school and an individual who takes up a post which is part of his training.

Dr. Segal: Could not newly qualified doctors be encouraged to undertake posts as trainee practitioners with doctors in general practice while waiting for their hospital appointments?

Grammar School Vacancies

Mr. Corlett: asked the Minister of Education having regard to variations which occur from year to year in a particular area, how far it is in accordance with his policy that some places in a secondary school may properly remain unfilled.

Mr. Tomlinson: This is a matter on which two views are possible but where,


as in the area which I assume my hon. Friend has in mind, the grammar school provision is above the average for the country as a whole, the arrangements for admission provide equal opportunities for all children, and the filling of every vacancy for the sake of filling it would mean lowering the standard of admission, I would not take exception to the Authority's action in leaving a relatively few vacancies unfilled.

Mr. Corlett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply, for which I thank him, will give very great satisfaction indeed to all local education authorities in the country?

Mrs. Leah Manning: As the examination at 11 plus can never be a just criterion of a child's future development, is it not a very great waste to have empty places in this type of secondary school when there are children who are willing to enter and parents who are anxious that their children should enter?

Mr. Tomlinson: That depends on the number of children and the number of parents who are anxious. If a standard is assumed it is difficult to determine which of the children whose parents are anxious that they should enter should fill the vacancies. In the old days vacancies were filled by paying for the child irrespective of its ability.

Mrs. Manning: Has my right hon. Friend looked at the results of children who did not pass the school entrance examination for these very schools over the past few years?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have not those over the past few years. What I do know is that all those which are being brought to my attention are of children who failed at 11 and have subsequently passed, leaving out of account the thousands who were turned down at 11 and did not have another opportunity.

Mr. Dryden Brook: Will my right hon. Friend see that if exceptions are made and the standard is lowered, it is done over a whole area rather than in particular cases?

Mr. Tomlinson: That is done.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Utility Footwear (Specifications)

Mr. Platte-Mills: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that men's shoes are now being made with a six iron shoulder outer sole, a board insole and heels of compressed board with only one leather layer; that footwear will not normally last for a reasonable period unless it is provided with an eight iron bend outer sole, a belly inner sole and an all-leather heel; and if he will safeguard the interests of the buying public by prescribing minimum specifications in respect of the manufacture of utility footwear.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): Detailed specifications of utility footwear have been departed from so as to allow for greater flexibility in manufacture and to give the public a wider choice of styles. The Board of Trade keeps a careful watch on the quality of the output. Manufacturers generally are co-operating and producing satisfactory footwear. I have no knowledge of shoes being made with shoulder soles and cardboard insoles, but if the hon. Member would let me have details of the specific cases he has in mind I would have them investigated.

Mr. Platte-Mills: In the absence of any minimum specification of quality for utility footwear, is not the President of the Board of Trade apprehensive that, owing to the rising cost of living and the demand for cheaper footwear, some people may be tempted to put this sort of shoddy on the market?

Mr. Wilson: I have not seen any evidence of the kind of shoddy to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but if he will let me have particulars I will investigate the matter.

Brigadier Head: Is it not due to the footwear that the iron entered into the "inner sole" of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wilson: The word "iron" in this connection, as I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman realises, is a measurement of thickness, being only l/48th of an inch.

Cotton Textiles (Exports)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade the volume of cotton textile exports, on the latest available date, expressed as a percentage of the 1937 volume.

Mr. H. Wilson: The volume of United Kingdom exports of cotton yarns and manufactures in the third quarter of this year was 54 per cent. of the average for the year 1937.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Has the right hon. Gentleman good reason to suppose that these figures will shortly be increased?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, I certainly hope they will, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise the difficulties of expanding output in exports in an industry which has 30 years of neglect and the difficulties of war-time behind it.

Sir John Barlow: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the volume compares with exports of 20 years ago?

Mr. Wilson: Not without notice.

Newspaper Placards

Mr. Follick: asked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the not excessive quantity of newsprint involved, if he will now allow newspapers and periodicals to display placards again.

Mr. H. Wilson: The restrictions on placards relate only to the display of contents posters and I am not aware of any general desire on the part of the publishers concerned to revert to this practice in the present position of newsprint supply.

Mr. Follick: Does my right hon. Friend think that it is compatible with the dignity and pride of the great capital of this Empire that the newsvendors in the streets should go about with dirty sheets of paper in front of them all bescribbled with words which hardly anybody can read?

Mr. Wilson: I am not aware of any demands on the part of the publishers concerned to have other forms of paper advertising.

Mr. Keeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the introduction of placards for the "Daily Herald" might

put up the election expenses of Labour candidates?

Chip Baskets

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many chip basket manufacturers are actually manufacturing chip baskets in the area west of a line drawn from Bristol to Bournemouth.

Mr. H. Wilson: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Marshall: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that if he goes into this, he will probably find that there is only one, and will he see to it that sufficient timber is given to that manufacturer to meet the demand of horticultural interests in the West of England?

Mr. Wilson: I know that the hon. Gentleman has brought this case to the notice of my officials. We shall certainly do all we can to help.

Export Trade (Dollar Areas)

Mr. Austin: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is now the intention of His Majesty's Government further to identify and publicise individual firms who have successfully responded to official appeals for greater dollar-earning efforts.

Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, Sir, subject to the practical difficulty of being sure that credit goes where credit is due.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade what cartel agreements exist discouraging British firms from expanding trade with dollar markets; and what action he is taking to see that such agreements are terminated.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am not in a position to know of private agreements which may exist between firms in the United Kingdom and firms overseas; nor could the effect of any such agreements on our exports to dollar markets be assessed without full investigation in each case. If any concrete instances where such agreements appear to be restricting our dollar earnings were brought to my notice, I would see what could be done having regard, if need be, to the provisions of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act,


1948. Meanwhile I would urge all concerned to consider the matter carefully before continuing old or entering into new agreements.

Mr. Hughes: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to statements by officials of the State Department and the European Co-operation Administration, reported in a responsible Sunday newspaper last week, that they have information that British firms are deliberately staying outside the dollar markets in order to honour illegal cartel agreements, citing chemical fertilisers in particular, and will he approach the E.C.A. and the State Department to ask for the necessary information to enable him to investigate this matter?

Mr. Wilson: The only cases brought to my attention are cases where the British firms concerned are subsidiaries of American firms or are manufacturing under patent royalty arrangements where there have been agreements that our firms will not enter the dollar market.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Do I understand from the replies of the right hon. Gentleman that no specific instances justifying action under the Monopolies Act have been brought to his attention to date?

Mr. Wilson: That is the position.

Commander Noble: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now consider allowing exporters to dollar countries to retain a percentage of the dollars earned; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am not yet in a position to make a statement about what, if any, additional incentives are necessary or desirable to assist the export trade to the dollar areas, but the Government remains ready to consider on its merits any scheme, orthodox or unorthodox, which would promote exports to the dollar areas.

Commander Noble: Will the Minister be saying something more about this point later, because he was widely reported as having said something on his recent return from North America?

Mr. Wilson: What I said was that a number of suggestions had been put before us and, in answer to a query from

the Press representative concerned, I gave a description of the scheme in force in Holland, which was one of many suggestions made to me, but it does not represent a scheme on which we have taken any decision about introducing into this country.

China

Mr. Austin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now consider sending an economic and trade mission to China forthwith to investigate trade prospects with that country.

Mr. H. Wilson: No, Sir. The question of recognition of the Communist regime would have to be settled first, and there has been no evidence yet that the attitude of the Communist authorities towards foreign trade would give opportunities for a successful trade mission.

Mr. Austin: While I appreciate the difficulties about recognition, when recognition is granted will my right hon. Friend consider appointing commercial and trade attaches as soon as possible?

Mr. Wilson: That is a hypothetical question.

Men's Corduroy Trousers

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to improve the supply of men's corduroy trousers and drill shirts in the slate-quarrying areas of Caernarvonshire.

Mr. H. Wilson: As I promised in the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 1st February last, I have sought the help of firms engaged in this trade to increase supplies of men's corduroy trousers in this area. There is, however, a general shortage, which will be eliminated only by increased production of the cloth. Similarly, with drill shirts, it is to increased production of drill cloths that we must look for elimination of supply difficulties, and all practicable steps to that end are being taken.

Mr. Roberts: Surely there must be some way of giving priority in these matters to areas where workers such as slate quarrymen are working; and does my right hon. Friend know that there is more corduroy in Bloomsbury than there is in North Wales?

Timber Production (Felling)

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the programme for home timber production in 1950.

Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, Sir. The types of timber which comprise the great bulk of home production are hardwood and pit-wood. I am glad to say that the improvement in the import prospects has enabled us to make further progress towards bringing the felling of our timber into line with the annual increment of growth. Felling in 1949 was limited to 75 per cent. of the hardwood and 50 per cent. of the softwood felled in 1947; and a further reduction of 20 per cent. from the 1949 level has been agreed for all home felling in 1950. From 1st January next, the Forestry Commission will issue all licences to fell.

Mr. Haire: Is this increase likely to lead to the removal of controls on the use of softwood, and will it lead to an improvement in the supply position of softwood for housing?

Mr. Wilson: I have made it clear that this was not an increase in felling but a decrease, and that it was principally hardwood and pitwood supplies that were affected. The softwood position still remains extremely difficult.

Colonel Ropner: Can further consideration be given to paying to the home producer the same price as is being paid to the foreign producer?

Mr. Wilson: The control on the price of homegrown timber has been removed with effect from 1st December last.

Earl Winterton: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether these regulations also apply to the Forestry Commission, and has there been the fullest consultation between his Department and the Head of the Forestry Commission as to whether it is a proper economic proposition?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, there has been the fullest co-operation and, as I have made clear, control over felling will now be exercised by the Forestry Commission so that felling can be related to the forestry needs of the country.

Flax Factory, Five Ash Down (Complaint)

Colonel Clarke: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the nuisance caused to persons living within one or two miles of the Five Ash Down flax factory by the smell of the retting; and if he will employ some method of deodorising to abate the discomfort caused.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am aware that some people living near the Five Ash Down Flax Factory have complained of the smell of retting. The possibility of deodorising any gases that emanate from the retting tanks is being investigated at the Flax Research Establishment.

Colonel Clarke: Is the Minister aware that nearly 200 people have filed a petition on the subject; and how long will this factory remain open, because locally it was understood to be a temporary war measure?

Mr. Wilson: It will certainly be necessary to go on with this factory because of the shortage of flax from other areas, but I am aware of the petition and I hope that the investigation in the research department will make possible some alleviation of the smell of which complaint is made.

Professor Savory: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the enlightened methods employed in Northern Ireland by which this difficulty is eliminated?

Mr. Wilson: I am fully aware of the methods in force in Northern Ireland. There are peculiar difficulties in the case referred to in the Question, due particularly to shortage of water supplies.

Sulphuric Acid (Government Purchases)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the President of the Board of Trade why, by S.I., 1949, No. 1934, he has exempted from price control sales of sulphuric acid to Government Departments.

Mr. H. Wilson: The intention of the exemption is to provide for purchases of sulphuric acid by Government Departments in cases where the maximum price cannot be assessed under Section 2 (b) of the Order by reference to the maximum price already paid by comparable industrial undertakings in the area where the acid is to be consumed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: But why should Government Departments be permitted to pay a price which, if paid by private firms, would amount to a black market transaction, and what justification is there for giving Government Departments a privilege to evade price restrictions imposed on everybody else?

Mr. Wilson: There is no question of black market transactions in this. What we have in mind is that there are certain Ministry of Supply atomic and other research establishments situated in areas where there are no other consumers on the basis of which it would be possible to fix a fair price, and therefore they are exempted for this reason.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: But is this concession given to any privately owned firm placed in the same position?

Mr. Wilson: If there was a privately owned firm in an area where there were no other comparable consumers, naturally special arrangements would have to be made.

Mr. William Shepherd: Is it not a fact that variations in price are caused only by the variation of the cost of delivery, and surely the reason advanced by the right hon. Gentleman is quite improper?

Production Efficiency Service

Mrs. Leah Manning: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many individual firms have asked for advice in raising productivity, from the Production Efficiency Service of the Board of Trade, in the years 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949, respectively.

Mr. H. Wilson: The number of individual firms who have asked for advice on raising productivity, from the Production Efficiency Service, is as follows: 1946, 99; 1947, 92; 1948, 132; 1949, 109.

Mrs. Manning: Can I ask my right hon. Friend from whom these firms will How get the assistance they need, since the service has been closed down.

Mr. Wilson: We are fully satisfied that there are sufficient arrangements now in industry for any firm requiring consultant advice to get it through normal channels.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any request for

advice on this subject from the Overseas Food Corporation?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMER TIME (DATE)

Mr. Folick: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the inevitability of a General Election in the earlier part of next year, if he will fix the starting date for daylight saving as the first of March instead of its usual date.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): No, Sir. I cannot accept either the premises or the conclusions of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Follick: While making allowance for the ignorance of my right hon. Friend—[Laughter]—is he not aware that it would be a great advantage to all parties if we had this extra hour for canvassing purposes if we do have an election early next year?

Mr. David Renton: Would the right hon. Gentleman lighten our darkness to the extent of saying whether the General Election will be within the first three months of next year?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. A little healthy speculation over Christmas will do people a lot of good.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Cannot the Home Secretary put hon. Members opposite in marginal seats out of their misery?

Mr. Ede: I think they are in remarkably good heart.

Mr. Baldwin: In view of the fact that we waste more hours of daylight in winter than in summer, will the Home Secretary consider, when thinking of altering the clock, leaving it alone and not playing about with it?

Mr. Ede: I shall be discharging my statutory duty in this form of sport shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE (TRAFFIC CONTROL)

Earl Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the shortage in the establishment


of the Metropolitan Police and the strain upon their members owing to the serious increase of crime, he will circularise local authorities within the Metropolitan Police area, asking them to increase the number of traffic lights and reduce the number of regulations in force in regard to street hawking and the parking of motor cars, so as to make more police available on duty for the prevention of serious crime.

Mr. Ede: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is considering proposals to instal additional traffic signals at about 20 places in the Metropolitan police district where the police are now employed to direct traffic. As regards street hawking, I assume that the noble Lord has in mind the position created by Part IV of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1947, under which numbers of perambulating traders have been registered by the local authorities; the Commissioner of Police is at present discussing the situation which this has created with the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee. As regards parking, the "No Waiting" regulations, which place restrictions on vehicles waiting in scheduled streets, were made by the Minister of Transport; I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that their effect has been to promote the flow of traffic and to reduce accidents and that they are therefore of help to the police.

Earl Winterton: While the answer of the right hon. Gentleman is very satisfactory in so far as it meets the points put in the Question, is he aware that the fact remains that very often when hold-ups on shops are being made, the constable is employed in the near neighbourhood jotting down in his notebook particulars either of street hawking or of the parking of cars, and that a clever criminal can pretty well find out what the policeman is doing?

Mr. Ede: I think that is rather an overstatement of the opportunities for the criminal, but we are doing our best, as the answer shows, to relieve the police of duties that can be performed in other ways, and I hope that that process will continue. I also hope that the improved rate of recruiting for the police will continue.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Mr. John Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of enrolments since Civil Defence recruiting was opened.

Mr. Ede: This information is being collected and I hope to be able to publish some figures in about 10 days.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRUELTY TO CHILDREN (CONVICTIONS)

Mr. Channon: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions for cruelty to children there have been in the last six or twelve months for which figures are available; and how these figures compare with the figures before the war.

Mr. Ede: In 1938 12 persons were found guilty at assizes and quarter sessions of offences of cruelty to or neglect of children and 932 persons were found guilty of such offences at magistrates' courts. The corresponding figures for 1948 were 36 and 1,004. In the first nine months of 1949 the total number of persons found guilty of these offences was 642, as compared with 804 in the first nine months of 1948.

Mr. Channon: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that these figures justify a change or, at least, a tightening up of the law, and is he not also aware that many people think that the sentences passed on offenders are in many cases much too lenient?

Mr. Ede: I understand we are to have an opportunity shortly of discussing this matter. Questions like that can be better answered in the course of Debate than at Question time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTORAL REGISTER

Names (Duplication)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the considerable number of people whose names appear on voting registers in two or more constituencies, and in the interest of maintaining the principle of one man one vote, he will arrange for all reprints of Electoral Registration forms to carry


the warning that it is an offence to vote more than once at the same Parliamentary Election.

Mr. Ede: I had already decided to arrange for a note on this subject to be printed in future on Form A.

Postal Votes (M.P.s' Applications)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department into what category of persons, specified in Form R.P.F. 9, do Members of this House fall in respect of their applications for a postal vote at the forthcoming General Election.

Mr. Ede: A person, now a Member of this House, who proposes to be a candidate in a constituency other than that in which he is an elector may apply on that ground, on the form in question, to vote by post at a General Election.

Colonial Civil Servants

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that only those Colonial civil servants who are paid out of money provided wholly by Parliament are eligible to vote in an election in the United Kingdom; and, as this rules out the majority of Colonial servants, what steps he proposes to take in the matter.

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. The provision to which the hon. Member refers is contained in regulations approved by Parliament and accords, in my view, with the intention of Parliament when it enacted Section 6 of the Representation of the People Act, 1948.

Mr. Gammans: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the anomaly that officers in the Consular Service abroad have a vote in this country, but officers in the Colonial Service abroad normally have no vote?

Mr. Ede: That is a point that should have been raised when we had a very full discussion on this matter when the Bill was going through the House.

Numbers

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement as to how the total number of electors, excluding Service

voters, on the new registers compares with the number on the last registers prepared before the re-introduction of the house-to-house canvass.

Mr. Ede: As I informed the hon. Member in answer to a Question last week, the number of electors on the Civilian Residence Register for 1948, the last compiled under the old law, was 31,122,555 in England and Wales and 865,917 in Northern Ireland. The provisional return, which will be published tomorrow will show that the approximate number of Parliamentary electors, excluding Service voters, on the October, 1949, register, the first under the new law, is 30,047,945—a r eduction of 1,074,610—in England and Wales, and 863,663—a reduction of 2,254—in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Keeling: As the population has increased during the 12 months, could the Home Secretary express an opinion whether the new system, which has produced a smaller total, is better than the old, or vice versa?

Mr. Ede: I think the new system is better than the old. The registration officers, whose advice I take in regard to the arrangements, anticipated that the change from the old system to the new would probably result in a reduction of about 5 per cent., owing to the more faulty method of compiling the registers under the old system. As a matter of fact, the reduction is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3 per cent.

Mr. Bramall: Can my right hon. Friend say the reason for the reduction, in view of his statement that the new system is better than the old? Is he aware that the old system omitted quite a number of people from the registers and, in view of this large fall, does he not think there must be many omitted from this register?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I think what happened under the old system was that certain people whose names ought to have been removed because they had left the district, or for other reasons, were in fact continued on the list and that led to a very considerable inflation of the registers.

Mr. Scollan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some parts of Scotland the registrar has sent out notices asking persons to fill them in and send them


back? Those notices frequently have not been filled in and sent back and a reminder has been sent and that is the only method they have at the moment in those places and consequently is there not bound to be a tremendous number left out?

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend should address his remarks in regard to Scotland to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. My experience is that when what my hon. Friend has described has occurred, there is a personal canvass of the property in question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXICABS, LONDON (CONSTRUCTION)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the fact that, since the screen on the left-hand side of the driver in a taxi is a fixture, the driver is in danger of being trapped in the event of an accident, he will direct that, in future, the left-hand partition should be made to open.

Mr. Ede: I assume that the Question refers to the Metropolitan police district. The matter was fully considered in connection with the design of the new types of cabs, and according to my information there is no likelihood that the driver could not release himself, or be released, from the front or either side of his seat, in the event of an accident. There is, of course, no left-hand door.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when a friend of mine, a taxi-driver, had an accident the other day the right-hand door was damaged and he was trapped—luckily there was no fire or other incident—and his life was in danger; and is it possible to have the left-hand partition made to open?

Mr. Ede: I understand there is a window in the left-hand partition through which a person of ordinary size can get out, but if the hon. Gentleman will give me the detailed particulars of the case he has in mind, I will have it investigated, because I am anxious that these men should be reasonably safe in carrying on their occupation.

Mr. John Lewis: Is it not quite obvious from the reply of the Home Secretary that apart from the small aperture in the window on the left-hand side of the driver there is no means of access whatsoever, so that if there were an accident and a fire and the right-hand door would not open, the man would inevitably perish, because there is no question whatever of his being able to get out?

Mr. Ede: These designs were, of course, made in consultation with the trade. I have offered to have the matter looked into and I will bear in mind the point which my hon. Friend has raised.

Major Legge-Bourke: What is the ordinary size of a taxi-driver and how many conform to it?

Mr. Ede: They are rather stouter than the hon. and gallant Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE COURTS (PUBLICITY)

Mr. Austin: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give consideration to the extension of the conditions of anonymity obtaining in matters of juvenile delinquency to all other trials involving children under the age of 16 years; and, in particular, if he will forbid the taking of photographs, so that needless distress to the accused and relatives may be avoided.

Mr. Ede: The Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, prohibits the publication of pictures or particulars calculated to lead to the identification of any child or young person concerned in proceedings in a juvenile court. The extension of this prohibition to cover juveniles who appear in an adult court would require legislation and as at present advised I am not satisfied that legislation for this purpose would be justified.

Mr. Austin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a case a fortnight ago of a child aged 12 who was acquitted on a charge of murder, and whose photograph was published in the newspapers, widespread distress was caused throughout the country, and is it not reasonable, therefore, to ask for some modified operation of the grim apparatus and machinery of the criminal law in regard to further child cases of this nature?

Mr. Ede: That, of course, was a peculiar case in that the juvenile court magistrates decided that the name should be released. That is a discretion that rests with them and I do not think it should be interfered with.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN'S VOLUNTARY SERVICES (COST)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the extent to which the Women's Voluntary Services are subsidised by public funds; and whether a balance sheet and accounts are available.

Mr. Ede: The cost of the Women's Voluntary Services borne on the current Home Office vote is some £166,000. My Department pays the bills and accounts for the expenditure. To this figure must be added the cost to the Exchequer in respect of rent, rates, repairs, office furniture, stationery and telephones. The separate cost of those services Which are not met from the Home Office Vote could only be ascertained by an unjustifiable expenditure of time and labour. No balance sheet or accounts are published by the Women's Voluntary Services in respect of the money for which my Department accounts.

Mr. Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend aware that according to the comments made by the voluntary workers of this organisation, they feel that the organisation should be entirely voluntary or else should change its title, and does my right hon. Friend consider it justified to investigate this matter to see if this service should continue in its present form and continue to draw public funds?

Mr. Ede: I think that the services of the women who are members of this organisation are voluntary, and they are to be commended.

Miss Bacon: Can my right hon. Friend say what has been the result of the talks that he has had with all the other chief women's organisations on the special position of the W.V.S.?

Mr. Ede: I arranged, as I think my hon. Friend knows, for the W.V.S. and those organisations to meet in a conference of their own at which no man should be present. I have not yet heard any result from that conference.

Mr. Haire: Would my hon. Friend say what conditions a women's organisation must fulfil in order to qualify for a grant and whether the Women's Co-operative Guild or the Townswomen's Guild would qualify?

Mr. Ede: If they do the appropriate services.

Mrs. Manning: Have the Government any call upon the Women's Voluntary Services for work of any particular kind, such as the work they did in Tanganyika, or are these offers made direct by them without a call from the Government?

Mr. Ede: We frequently have a conference with the leaders of this organisation when there is some need for help for particular causes and people, and I ask them if they will assist us. I am bound to say that their response is always quick.

Mr. Cooper: Are any salaries paid to any of the workers in this organisation?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir, there are some salaried workers in the organisation.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOVIET MINERS' DELEGATION (VISAS)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what conditions a group of Soviet miners was recently admitted into this country.

Mr. Ede: On 10th October I authorised the grant of visas to the members of a Soviet miners' delegation who had been invited by the Scottish Section of the National Union of Mineworkers to visit the United Kingdom for three weeks in return for a visit paid by Scottish miners to the Soviet Union. They were given leave to land on 15th October for a stay of three weeks and at their request I agreed to extend their stay till 9th November, when they left.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the statements which are so often made that it is desirable that peoples should get to know each other, can the Minister say who was responsible for the descent of the Iron Curtain when these miners visited this country and why the B.B.C., instead of putting on these foreign miners, put on four professional slanderers to talk about the Russian people?

Mr. Ede: All those matters appear to be outside the scope of my Department. These people asked for permission to come. It was at once granted. Having got here, they liked the place so much that they asked for an extension. That was immediately granted. Had they asked for a longer extension they would have had it.

Mr. Marlowe: Was it one of the conditions of this visit that during their time here these Soviet miners should be precluded from attending any theatrical performance at which anybody poked fun at the Coal Board?

Mr. Awbery: Will my right hon. Friend do all he possibly can to encourage workers, not only from the Soviet Union, but from other countries, to visit this country, and vice versa?

Mr. Ede: If an application is made to me by the nationals of any country in similar circumstances to these, the application will be granted.

Mr. Nally: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the great difficulties of providing private hospitality and the welcome we would like to provide for Soviet visitors is due to the fact that any organised party of Soviet visitors arrives here with the clearest instructions not on any account to accept any private invitations, not to have interviews with British Press representatives and in fact are specially instructed not to have private relations with the British people?

Mrs. Manning: May I be allowed to ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that the last statement made is completely untrue and that the seven women from the Soviet Union, who came here with the help of the Foreign Office and had all the help that could be given, had private hospitality during nearly the whole of their stay and met whoever they wished to meet?

Mr. Ede: None of those things is my responsibility.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that when this delegation came to this country I asked many hon. Members of this House, but I have never discovered a Member of this House who knew there was a delegation of Soviet miners in this country? Were any instructions given

to the Press not to mention the delegation?

Mr. Ede: No instructions were given by me to anyone in the matter at all, except to the person responsible for granting the visas that the visas were to be granted and, when an extension was asked for, that it should be granted.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARISH COUNCIL ELECTIONS (COST)

Mr. Gooch: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to assist rural parishes financially in cases where the cost of parish council elections absorbs most of the parish's total yearly income.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that many parish councils have found it difficult to meet the increased cost of the parish council elections under the new procedure; and if he will take steps to provide financial or other assistance in this matter, especially to rural parish councils to whom this new expense is an appreciable burden.

Mr. Ede: I would refer to my answer to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Eastern Division of Norfolk (Brigadier Medlicott) on 1st December, to which I can only add that I have no power to assist parish councils financially in this matter.

Mr. Gooch: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that it is rather disturbing to parish councils to discover that they have spent the whole of their yearly income on an election, and will he consider the possibility of passing on some suggestion to parish councils who desire to continue this democratic form of election to reduce the cost of the election?

Mr. Ede: The various fees which may be charged in connection with an election are fixed by the county council for the area concerned. I believe there is some occasion in some areas for that scale of fees to be considered.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the old arrangements worked perfectly well and the new arrangements are expensive, unnecessary and unpopular?

Mr. Ede: The organisation speaking for parish councils in the country had for a long time asked that the old method should be abandoned.

Oral Answers to Questions — INJURED MOUNTAIN CLIMBERS (MORPHINE)

Colonel Dower: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decision he has now reached on the possibility of allowing non-medical persons to administer morphia, under appropriate safeguards, in the case of mountain rescue parties.

Mr. Ede: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave last week to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). The meeting. to which I then referred, with representatives of mountaineering interests took place yesterday and, as soon as I have had time to study its recommendations. I will announce my decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADOPTED CHILDREN (INTESTACY)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce an amendment of the law so as to ensure that, when an adopted child dies before the age of 21 years, any savings placed in his name by his adopting parents shall pass to those parents and not to the next of kin.

Mr. Ede: The Adoption of Children Bill provides that on any intestacy occurring after the commencement of the Act, adopted persons shall be treated as children of the adopters for the purposes of succession to property.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON OFFICERS, OXFORD (HOUSING)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that proposals are under consideration to hand over to the Oxfordshire County Council, for use as offices, two residential quarters now occupied by prison officers who have been offered alternative accommodation in one of the housing estates in Oxford; and whether, in view of the long waiting list

that there is for houses in Oxford, he will ensure that these residential quarters are retained for their present purpose.

Mr. Ede: When I was obliged to withdraw from the arrangement that the site of Oxford Prison should be handed over to the local authorities before the end of 1950, I was naturally anxious to make any practicable arrangements to mitigate the unexpected inconvenience to those authorities. In the course of a discussion to that end with local interests, one of the proposals put forward, to provide urgently needed additional office accommodation for the County Council, was that two prison officers' quarters adjacent to the Council Offices might be handed over for offices if two suitable houses within reasonable distance of the prison were provided in exchange. The Council has, I understand, accepted this suggestion, but the exchange has not yet taken place.

Mr. Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the very seriously congested and unhappy housing conditions in which the prison officers are now residing? Has he considered the representations of the visiting magistrates in relation to this matter, and if he cannot find proper accommodation in the way suggested in the Question will he exercise his powers of compulsory purchase?

Mr. Ede: No. This arrangement was reached at a conference at which all the local authorities were represented, when there was a genuine desire that the position in regard to the accommodation of the County Council should be eased. This is an arrangement which has been worked out between all concerned. If I proceeded by way of compulsory purchase I should have to keep all concerned waiting a great deal longer.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIALISED INDUSTRIES (BOARDS)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Prime Minister if he will publish as a White Paper or in the OFFICIAL REPORT an up-to-date comprehensive list of all Members appointed to central and regional nationalised boards of a commercial character, with details of individual salaries, pensions and expenses allowed, together with a separate list showing all


individuals holding more than one such appointment, and what those appointments are.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): As the answer is extremely long and involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

[See Written Answers, col. 183 to col. 200.]

Mr. Erroll: Has the Prime Minister considered the regular or periodic publication of this information in a compact form as it is not readily available except by the haphazard process of putting down a Parliamentary Question?

The Prime Minister: I think the best way is to publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Prime Minister include in this report the fees and salaries paid to the directors of the big combines, which will show that they are receiving infinitely more than
members of the Coal Board?

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister consider approaching the Federation of British Industries to ask them whether they would not consider making available comparable information about private enterprise so that a comparison can be made?

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY (POLICY)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now make a statement on the intentions of His Majesty's Government with regard to the fishing industry.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council will, however, be prepared to make a statement on this matter when dealing with the Business of the House for next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

County Executive Committees

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give an estimate

of money owing to county agricultural committees; and what proportion of this is written off as bad debts.

Mr. T. Williams: The debts owing to county agricultural executive committees at 31st March, 1949, the latest date for which figures are available, totalled £3,352,000. I cannot say what proportion will be written off as bad debts, but of the total charges to fanners of £96½ million from the commencement of the committees' operations to 31st March, 1949, only £22,200, or rather less than one-fortieth of 1 per cent., had been written off by that date.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the enormous losses by these county committees and the enormous amount of money involved, and in view of the fact that these committees are the thin end of the wedge for the nationalising of the land, will the Minister scrap them?

Mr. Williams: No, Sir.

Mr. De la Bé re: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a statement in connection with the recent resignation of some of the chairmen of the county agricultural committees; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that men of experience are retained.

Mr. T. Williams: Three chairmen of county agricultural executive committees have resigned since 1st January last; one on the grounds of age; another because of ill-health; and the third through difficulties of an administrative nature. I am sure that the chairmen and members of county committees appreciate that the work they are doing in the national interest and for the good of the industry is as important as ever.

Mr. De la Bé re: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that I am a seeker after truth? Can we have an assurance from him that men in responsible positions will be retained and will not be allowed to resign because there has been unnecessary disagreement between them and Whitehall officials?

Mr. Williams: I am glad to be able to say that we always have people who are willing to accept these great responsibilities.

Veterinary Surgeons

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the shortage of veterinary surgeons employed by his Department in Somerset is such that food production is retarded and farmers are often unable to have obligatory tests carried out; and what action he will take to obviate this difficulty.

Mr. T. Williams: There is at present a general shortage of veterinary surgeons for both official duties and private practice. There is, however, little delay in carrying out official tuberculin tests in Somerset, though I understand that a number of veterinary surgeons have waiting lists of clients anxious to have the preliminary private tests of their herds made. With regard to the last part of the Question, arrangements have already been made, as part of the policy embodied in the Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1948, to increase the flow of graduates into the profession, but naturally it will be some time before the full effect of these measures can be felt.

Mr. Collins: Can my right hon. Friend give any estimate of when he hopes that the demand for veterinary surgeons will be met?

Mr. Williams: I am afraid I cannot because that depends on the rate of recruitment of new students and their departure from the various universities.

Lieut-Commander Braithwaite: Has not the treatment of the doctors had a deleterious effect on recruitment for the veterinary profession?

Mr. Williams: I should think that it has helped considerably.

Sand Removal, Constantine Bay

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Agriculture in view of the fact that the commoners at Constantine Bay, Cornwall, have assigned their rights to him, whether it is with his authority that sand hauliers have made a road into the common lands for the purpose of removing sand from the beaches; whether he is aware that that they are now engaged in removing the sand dunes themselves; and whether he will institute legal proceedings to protect the common lands.

Mr. T. Williams: No commoners' rights at Constantine Bay have been assigned to me, and the access road to which my hon. Friend refers has not been made with my authority. I am not aware that the hauliers are now removing sand dunes. I have no power to institute proceedings to protect the common lands and it is primarily for the owners of the soil to consider whether any action should be taken in the matter.

Mr. Stokes: But is my right hon. Friend aware that he is paying these people a subsidy to take away the common lands and does it not show that his methods of inspection and checking are completely inadequate, as I have said for years?

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend must agree, from the letter which I sent to him last evening explaining the full facts of the case, that I am in no way responsible for the statement made in his Question.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have not yet received it?

Mr. Charles Williams: Will the Minister protect the age-long right of Cornish farmers to have sand to manure their own land?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Companies (Government Loans)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will publish a list of firms, showing the separate amounts at present on loan to them from the Treasury.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): No, Sir. It would be contrary to the normal practice to give these particulars about individual companies, most of which are private companies. The total number of companies assisted is 27, under Section 4 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, and 5 under the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937. The respective amounts outstanding are £1,305,302 and £209,484, a total of £1,514,786.

American Play (Taxation Exemption)

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the nature of the association between the Arts


Council of Great Britain and Tennent Productions, Ltd. in the production of the play "A Streetcar Named Desire"; in what proportion any profits earned by this play are divided between the two bodies; and what restriction is placed on the uses to which such profits may be put.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The Council's association with Tennent Productions Ltd., which is of long standing and not confined to the production of this particular play, is governed by the Council's standard drama agreement of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. This agreement neither imposes any financial liability on the Council nor gives it any right to partake in the Company's profits, except in certain circumstances after dissociation; but it provides that all profits made during the period of association can be expended only on objects or activities approved by the Council.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not a case merely of this play? There are five or six plays being run under these joint auspices at present and some are doing business which any commercial theatre might envy. Does he not think that there is a case for inquiry into the administration of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1946, to ensure that relief goes to deserving plays which may need it, and not to possibly undeserving plays which manifestly do not need it?

Mr. Cooper: Will my right hon. Friend include in his reply some reference to the management fee which is retained by Tennent Productions? Does not that amount to a disguised profit which they receive?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry but I could not hear the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper). I would inform the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) that the Arts Council are represented on the board of this company, and in addition, the Customs and Excise watch matters very closely.

Mr. Wilkes: Is not the case for some review of this relationship very much strengthened by the fact that a British

ballet company, the Metropolitan Ballet, has just had to close down because it could obtain no financial support from the Arts Council? Would it not seem that this ballet company is much more deserving of financial support from the Arts Council than a great many other ventures?

Mr. Boothby: Is there absolutely no direct Treasury control over the type of production which receives what amounts to a Government subsidy?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: A company must comply with the terms of the Finance Act to which this House assented. If it does so, and at the moment Customs and Excise do watch these matters closely, we have to assume they are complying, as indeed they are, with the terms of the Act.

Mr. Cooper: Can the Financial Secretary make some reference to the management fee which is charged by Tennent Productions, Ltd., and is not this in fact a disguised profit which they take out of this production of plays?

Earl Winterton: Has the attention of the Financial Secretary been drawn to the fact that during the whole of these questions the Treasury has had no support for its views from any part of the House?

Mr. Blackburn: In support of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, Central (Mr. Wilkes), is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great indignation among British dramatists at the fact that so few British plays and ballets are produced today at the London theatres? Is it not a serious fact that this play is an American play, and will the Arts Council be told to encourage British drama and British ballet?

Mr. E. P. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, taking in the whole country, the non-profit-making system works extraordinarily well?

Mr. Pickthorn: When the Financial Secretary says that all these matters are watched by Customs and Excise does he include under "these matters" the moral and aesthetic value of the piece presented? Is that watched by Customs and Excise?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Treasury and Customs and Excise only come into this


matter in so far as taxation is concerned, namely, Entertainments Duty, and it any of these bodies fulfil the conditions laid down by Parliament they do not pay the entertainments tax.

Mrs. Manning: In view of all that has been said will my right hon. Friend ask his right hon. and learned Friend to look again into this matter, since what has really been said by his right hon. and learned Friend and by himself today, amounts to the fact that, so long as it is this company, Tennents, which put on a play, it does not matter at all what the play is, educational or anything else?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It does matter, Mr. Speaker, indeed it does. A company has to be non-profit making and in addition it has to be partly educational and partly cultural. It is no part of our job if those conditions are fulfilled to censor any particular production.

Captain Crookshank: Is it not quite clear from the Questions and the answers given this week as well as last week, that while the law may be as the right hon. Gentleman has just said, it is possible to drive a coach-and-four through it? Would not he therefore have the matter properly investigated so that the House can look at it at the time of the next Finance Bill?

Mr. Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend, before answering that question, consider very carefully how dangerous it would be to try to impose any sort of censorship by Treasury officials on plays to be performed on the stage.

Mr. Boothby: In view of his last reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what precise educational value has this particular play?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to, "A Streetcar Named Desire." I have not seen the play myself—

Mr. Boothby: I have—

Mr. Glenvil Hall: —and although obviously opinions may differ as to its merit, I am told that in the United States it has won at least three literary prizes.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that possibly not one in 10 of the critics have seen this play?
Is he further aware that the "Evening Standard" thought it was a great piece of literature, and ran it as a serial?

Mr. Marlowe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this particular play is only educational to those who are ignorant of the facts of life?

Mr. J. Lewis: In view of the interest which the House is showing in this particular play, can my right hon. Friend arrange for hon. Members to see it at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Wilson Harris: In order that the matter may be more fully discussed, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CATERING WAGES ACT (INQUIRY)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the general rise in all hotel prices, he will appoint a committee to inquire into the working of the Catering Wages Act and regulations made thereunder with special reference to their possible effect on the tourist trade in 1950.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to announce the setting up of an inquiry into the workings and administration of the Catering Wages Act.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the consent of the House, I should like to answer Questions Nos. 90 and 92.
Having regard to the great importance of developing the tourist traffic to the fullest extent possible consistently with the need for protecting the conditions of the workers and the building up of an efficient labour force, I have decided, after consultation with the two sides of the industry, to direct the Catering Wages Commission to inquire into the operation of the Catering Wages Act in the hotel industry in relation to the means for meeting the requirements of the public, including in particular the requirements of visitors from overseas, both generally


and with special reference to the following questions:

(i) whether there is sufficient flexibility in its operation
(a) as a matter of normal practice;
(b) at holiday times;
(ii) whether special arrangements are necessary to deal with the problems of seasonal hotels and hotels in rural areas including hotels in Scotland;
(iii) whether it is practicable and desirable to simplify the existing arrangements;
(iv) whether in the light of experience under the Act any change in principle as regards taking tips into account as a factor affecting statutory minimum remuneration is necessary or desirable.
I propose to appoint as assessors, to be available to the Commission in connection with this inquiry, persons drawn from the two sides of the industry, including one from Scotland. The Commission have informed me that amongst the bodies they will consult will be the British Tourist and Holidays Board, the Scottish Tourist Board and the Welsh Tourist Board. I have asked the Commission to deal with the inquiry as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Taylor: While I believe that the announcement made by the Minister will be received with great gratification on all sides by the trade, may I ask if he really thinks it is wise to appoint the Chairman of the Catering Wages Commission to conduct this inquiry? Is it not really rather like appointing the murderer to preside—[Interruption.]—I am not saying this unkindly—is not it really appointing, a murderer shall we say, to preside over his final appeal?

Mr. Isaacs: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman knew the operation of this thing a little better than that. We are not appointing the chairman; we are appointing the Commission. The Commission did not draw up these schemes. They were drawn up by the various boards operating under the Commission. Further, what we are asking the Commission to do is to check up on the work done by the boards and to see if in fact it is appropriate for the needs of the country. The Commission consists of six

and I am appointing six assessors. I think that the voting will be in the right balance.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the Minister aware that his statement will be received with acclamation by each side of the industry; but can he give an assurance that in regard to the Unlicensed Residential Establishments Wages Board—which has been sitting for four years and has only just reached the conclusion—that in the interim period those wages and conditions will apply to the workers in that section of the industry whilst the Commission is holding this inquiry?

Mr. Isaacs: I have no power to direct the board, but the particular body to which my hon. Friend refers has informed me that in view of the number of proposals which have come before them they are anxious to withhold asking me to confirm the order until they have heard more about the result of this inquiry.

Mr. Wilson Harris: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, first, whether he realises that these questions were put down in no controversial spirit; and, secondly, whether he realises how very unfavourable are some of the comparisons drawn by American visitors between Continental hotels and British hotels in the year 1949? Will he appreciate the immense importance to our tourist trade of improving conditions in British hotels with full reference to the just claims of the staff and all concerned?

Mr. Mathers: Will my right hon. Friend make more clear the position with regard to Scotland? He linked up his reference to Scotland with a reference to hotels in rural areas. Are we to understand that in Scotland hotels in the cities and towns will also be included in the scope of the inquiry, because they cater very largely for a seasonal trade?

Mr. Isaacs: The answer was intended to convey that all hotels will come under examination with special reference to the seasonal hotels and those in rural areas. The reference to Scotland includes the widest sphere.

Mr. McCorquodale: In view of the great importance of tourist traffic next year, may we expect a report before the season opens?

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot prophesy to that extent. I have asked the inquiry to deal with the matter as one of urgency and I think that they intend to do so.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why the terms of reference include special mention of conditions in Scotland, with which I agree, but no mention of the special conditions in Wales?

Mr. Isaacs: The answer is quite simple. It is because there was a special inquiry made into conditions in Scotland under the chairmanship of Professor Knox who put in a report. We have asked that his criticism should be specially examined.

Mr. Challen: Is the Minister in a position to provide the necessary staff to the Catering Wages Commission so that they can undertake this inquiry?

Mr. Isaacs: So far as I am concerned, I think that the only staff they will require will be a secretary, and I think that we can find them one.

Mr. Gibson: In view of the importance of the principle of a minimum wage for the workers in the catering industry, will this inquiry have any power to recommend reductions in the present minimum wages which have been fixed?

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot say what they will recommend. They have the power to survey the general field, but it has been made clear to them that that is to be done consistently with the need for protecting the workers.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: Will the inquiry have power to investigate the position of clubs under this Act?

Mr. Isaacs: Clubs and pubs come under a separate section, and the Commission can investigate them should the need arise, but apparently there has been no query about them.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Can my right hon. Friend say whether on this Commission there will be at least one person to represent the interests of Wales—a person who knows Wales and who has knowledge which no one but a Welshman can have?

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot give a definite answer to that question, but as we are making a special point of Wales and the Tourist Board is to be consulted, we will look into that matter.

Sir Peter Macdonald: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether the Catering Wages Commission is the right body to investigate its own functions over the last four years? Does he not think that an outside body would be far more appropriate to investigate the work of this Commission which has failed in the last four years to carry out its functions?

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Gentleman could not have heard the answer I have already given to a precisely similar question.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Arising from that last reply, would the Minister say what the Commission has been doing in the last four years other than examining these schemes? Can he say how this new instruction amounts to any more than telling them to do the job they ought to have been doing before?

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Gentleman should understand the difference between the function of the Commission and the boards appointed. It is the boards which draw up these schemes. The Commission has no authority to direct them. They can only go into the matter generally. They have not been asked to do that. Now, the first time that there has been any real complaint, I have ordered an inquiry without any delay. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The previous complaints have not been justified.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, pending the publication of the report, he will suspend the regulations so far as they affect unlicensed hotels and boarding houses which are completely unintelligible, complicated and almost impossible to carry out?

Mr. Isaacs: I have no power to suspend regulations.

Mr. David Renton: In view of the difficulty created by the Catering Wages Act in the running of railway restaurant cars, can the Minister say whether this inquiry will cover the effect of the Act upon the work of the Hotels Executive.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Would the right hon. Gentleman in consultation with the Minister of Food consider widening the terms of reference to include consideration of the 5s. limit on the price of meals.

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: Can the Leader of the House tell us the Business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 12TH DECEMBER—Committee and remaining stages of the following Consolidation Measures: the Patents Bill [Lords], the Registered Designs Bill [Lords], the Vehicles (Excise) Bill [Lords], the Election Commissioners Bill [Lords], and the Air Corporations Bill [Lords].
Afterwards, time will be afforded for a Debate on a Motion relating to Gas shareholders compensation until 7 p.m.
Then a Debate will take place on the Motion relating to Cruelty and Neglect of Children, which appears on the Order Paper today in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould), my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton).
TUESDAY, 13TH DECEMBER—Report and Third Reading of the Justices of the Peace Bill [Lords].
Consideration of Motions relating to the continuance in force of Section 8 of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, and of Regulation 76 of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939; and of a Motion to approve the draft National Youth Employment Council and Advisory Committee for Scotland and Wales (Membership) Order.
WEDNESDAY, 14TH DECEMBER—Debate on the Cinematograph Film Industry which will arise on a Government Motion.
Consideration of Motion to approve the Draft Sale of Food (Weights and Measures Variation of First Schedule) Regulations.
THURSDAY, 15TH DECEMBER—There will be an opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to debate the question of Nutrition, until 7 p.m.
Afterwards time will be given for the consideration of a Motion relating to the publication of the accounts of political parties.
FRIDAY, 16TH DECEMBER—Consideration of Lords Amendments or of any outstanding Business.
It is expected that Prorogation will take place later in the Sitting and that the new Session will be opened on Tuesday, 24th January, 1950.
Amendments are expected to be received from another place to certain Bills during the early part of next week and they will be put down for consideration on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday.

Mr. Boothby: Can the right hon. Gentleman make any pronouncement with regard to the intentions of the Government in respect of the Sea Fish Industry Bill?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid that we shall not be able to complete that Bill this Session, partly because of time and partly because it was found that some powers were needed for local authorities which would require a Financial Resolution and a re-committal. That added to the difficulty. I am sorry, but I am afraid that we cannot complete that Bill this Session.

Mr. Braddock: Has the Lord President had an opportunity of further considering the Motion on the Order Paper signed, I believe, by a record number of Members totalling 138, in connection with the disallowance of war damage claims? If he has had an opportunity of considering giving Parliamentary time to that, is he encouraged by the fact that he has been able to find time this afternoon for Motions that are on matters which are nothing like as old and, I venture to say, no more important than this one.

Earl Winterton: Is the Lord President aware that those of us who have been pressing for a Debate on the subject of cruelty to children are most grateful for the reward given to our pertinacity but entirely deny the point made by the last speaker?

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I am afraid that I cannot find time for the Motion to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) referred. He is wrong in thinking that it is a record number of names. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) once nearly got a majority of the House. I still defied him.

Mr. Keeling: In order that Christmas harmony may not be disturbed by the prospect of an early election, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that between the Prorogation next week and the date fixed for the new Session to begin—24th January—Parliament will not be dissolved?

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Can my right hon. Friend tell us when we are going to have the draft of the Wool Textile Industry Development Council Order?

Mr. Morrison: I think that question had better be put to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, and if so when, the Government will give time for the Third Reading of one of the most enlightened Measures ever introduced into this Parliament, namely, the Censorship of Plays (Repeal) Bill, which has been passed through its other stages with only one slight Amendment?

Mr. Morrison: I seem to have heard about the adventures of this Bill, but I am very sorry to disappoint the hon. Member, whom I should like to oblige, but I do not see much prospect of our being able to afford time for that Bill this Session.

Mr. Harry Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement about a discussion on the publication of accounts of political parties will be received with great satisfaction by hon. Members of this House?

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the dissatisfaction felt in all parts of the House owing to the fact that only five and a half hours were given to the discussion of the accounts of the British Transport Commission, which covers no fewer than five major industries, and will he say what he is going to do to make available another opportunity for further Debate?

Mr. Morrison: This is a very ungrateful world. I really did make a special effort to enable the House to discuss as many of these public corporations and their affairs as possible, which I think it is important that we should do. I did try hard, and I thought somebody might

give me a vote of thanks, instead of keeping on like this.

Miss Jennie Lee: Will the Lord President indicate when he will be able to implement the promise which he gave to the House last July to find time to introduce legislation providing compensation for damage to cottages owing to mining subsidence?

Mr. Morrison: That matter has not been overlooked, and the Government are exceedingly sympathetic about the point. We are seeing what can be done, but, obviously, it cannot be undertaken in the present Session.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Can the Lord President tell the House when it is expected that the Report of the first year's working of the British Electricity Authority will be presented?

Mr. Morrison: I really do not know; I have not got the dates in mind, but I will look them up.

Mr. Bing: Can my right hon. Friend say, in view of the interest shown on all sides of the House in the tourist industry, and of the fact that this Motion really was signed by a record number of hon. Members, whether he can give any time at a convenient date in future for the discussion of a Motion on Tied houses which is at present standing on the Order Paper?
[That this House condemns the Tied Public House system, as at present operated, in that it deprives the customer of his freedom of choice of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages alike, tends to restrict the provision of food and accommodation, increases by monopolist practices the price of refreshments to the customer and does not furnish sufficient security of tenure to the publican; and that therefore this House calls upon His Majesty ' s Government to inquire into the Tied House system and other restrictive practices of Brewers and to introduce, where necessary, remedial legislation.]

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I could not give any firm undertaking at this stage. I do realise that this is a matter upon which there is fairly extensive interest among hon. Members on all sides of the House; but, as my hon. Friend knows, after he and his hon. Friends put down their Motion, the


brewers did offer to make a new type of agreement with their tenants. Perhaps he and his hon. Friends might consider whether we should not wait for a little while to see how it works out in practice and get some experience of it in a practical way.

Mr. Boothby: Does the Lord President not realise the satisfaction that would be given to the whole fishing industry by the dropping of that foolish Bill—the Sea Fish Industry Bill?

Mr. Morrison: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's motives, but the net result is the same.

Mr. Blackburn: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in view of the fact that this House has not debated what are probably the two most important events in the last 30 years—the collapse of China and the significance of the Soviet Union's development of the atomic bomb—he will say whether these most important events can form the subject of debate before the Dissolution?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know why hon. Gentlemen are worrying about Dissolution, but I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, and will see what can be done next Session.

Professor Savory: I should like to ask the Lord President of the Council whether, when a Private Member's Bill has attained a majority of two to one on Second Reading, and after various vicissitudes has got through the Standing Committee, is it not rather hard that the Government should refuse to provide time for its Third Reading? I am referring to the Bill for the abolition of the censorship on plays.

Mr. Morrison: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, because I have a high regard for his intelligence, but he surely should know that there was time set apart for the discussion of Private Members' Bills in the House and that it has expired. Therefore, he should not blame the Government, but should blame the House for having imposed this shattering limitation on Private Members' time.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: In view of the urgent need of the country for increased

productivity, can my right hon. Friend give consideration to the possibility of a Debate on one of the most helpful means of increasing productivity—the subject of joint consultation?

Mr. Morrison: I think that would have been a worthy subject for discussion, but I fear that there is no time in the present Session.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the Lord President recall that the annual accounts of the Air Corporations, showing a loss of nearly £10 million, were published two months ago, and will he say when the House will have the opportunity of discussing this loss of the taxpayers' money?

Mr. Morrison: We had a discussion on the Air Corporations not so very long ago—

Air-Commodore Harvey: No.

Mr. Morrison: We did, and I remember it, because I got ready for trouble, and trouble did not come; it became a damp squib. We really have not done so badly this Session on the socialised industries, and I am anxious that they should be debated, but we cannot expect every one of them to be debated in every Session of Parliament.

Mrs. Middleton: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend has said that interest in the House was one criterion in the arrangement of Government business, is he aware that there is very great interest in the subject of war damage claims, and that many of us for the last two years have been trying to get an adequate discussion of this matter? In view of these facts, will he take some steps to give time at an early date for this business to be discussed?

Mr. Morrison: From my recollection, I am bound to say that the ingenuity of my hon. Friend and others has secured more than one discussion of this business, somehow or other.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I ask the Lord President, who has declined over a dozen requests for Debates on important matters this afternoon, how he expects to satisfy the House of the justice of his case if he does not indicate how long the next Session will last?

Mr. Morrison: It is obvious that it cannot last longer than somewhere about the summer.

Mr. Braddock: May I ask the Lord President if he does not consider that, when this House has passed a Private Members Bill through its Second Reading unopposed, and when it has passed its Report stage unopposed, that that is proof that this House and the country are taking a very great interest in that particular matter, which, in the case I am thinking of is that of war damage claims, and would he really reconsider this matter in view of the feeling that exists in the country?

Mr. Speaker: May I say that already two speakers have been cut out from the Debate which is to follow by reason of these supplementary questions. I think that, as it is an important matter that we are going to discuss, it would be better to get on to that Debate. If I may say so, it is a pure waste of time to ask questions on Government business especially when Parliament is to be prorogued tomorrow week, and everything is cut

down. There is no point in these supplementaries.

Mr. Wyatt: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Government have in mind a debate on the Motion relating to the subject matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) with Mr. Speaker last week?
[That the matter of the complaint of the honourable Member for Ashford referred to in the statement of Mr. Speaker on Monday, 5th December, be referred to the Committee of Privileges.]

Mr. Speaker: It is not my business.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: In view of the fact that the second subject announced for debate next Thursday night is not likely to raise any controversial issue, can the Lord President say whether he will find time for legislation requiring political parties to publish annual audited accounts?

Mr. Braddock: May I have a reply to my question?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister need not reply if he does not want to.

AIR ACCIDENTS (INQUIRY REPORTS)

4.1 p.m.

Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move,
"That, in view of the treatment of the Report made by the independent tribunal appointed to investigate the accident at Prestwick Airport on 20th October, 1948, this House considers that provision should be made for a Report on the facts and causes of such accidents to be made by a statutory Court, whose conclusions should be accepted as final save so far as provision is made for appeal or re-hearing, in order that confidence here and abroad in the conclusions arrived at after hearing evidence may be more firmly established."

Mr. Rankin: On a point of Order. In view of the time that has been taken up by questions following the announcement of the business for next week, would it be within your discretion, Mr. Speaker, to exercise a little patience with regard to the time limit for the termination of this Debate?

Mr. Speaker: I will judge the best I can. All I can say at the moment is that I hope hon. Members will co-operate by making their speeches as short as possible.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: This Motion falls into three parts. The first covers the treatment of the report about the accident in question; the second, the proposals for dealing with such accidents in future; and, the third, the reasons for which we attach great importance to this case. With regard to the first part, I wish to direct my attention mainly to whether the Minister was right or wrong in substituting his own view for the findings of the court. The Minister admitted that he was wrong in publishing his dissent from the report before making any statement in Parliament. He has apologised for that, and I am not going to elaborate that aspect of the matter. Equally, as the times of the receipt and publication of the report are known to the House and speak loudly for themselves, I shall again not occupy time with them. But I want to make it plain that I must not be taken as dissenting from what has been said by my hon. Friends at another time.
I am very anxious not to be repetitive because it is known that this matter has been discussed in another place, but I do not want anyone to misunderstand me. If I do not repeat the strictures on

certain aspects of the matter, it is not because I think the matter is any less serious or the actions of the Minister less deserving of blame. To me, however, at this stage, the greater importance attaches to the matters which I have mentioned as I think they are vital for the future of civil aviation and the reputation of our country.
As I have said, the first point I want to approach is whether the Minister can arrogate to himself the authority to make decisions on the causes of the accident and the circumstances thereof which under his own regulations he has already entrusted to a court. There is no doubt as to the attitude of the Minister. His attitude has been that the report of this court is clearly intended, as he has emphasised, to be advisory, and it was put by the Parliamentary Secretary in this House on 23rd November as follows:
I should have thought that it is common procedure for an inquiry to be held and for the Minister setting up such an inquiry to accept or reject the findings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 343–4.]
We differ from the view expressed by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. We believe that the Minister should accept the findings, unless he believes that they have been made on no evidence at all. In our view, he is not allowed to change them because he takes a different view of the evidence, and, furthermore, he must, under his own regulations, draw the distinction between findings as to the causes of the accident and observations and recommendations to future action that he may take. That point is made clear in the regulations which have been in force, although re-enacted, since 1922, and in dealing with a former investigation in Regulation 7 of the Air Navigation Regulations it says:
Where it appears to the Secretary of State that it is expedient to hold a formal investigation of an accident
(2) The Court shall hold the investigation in open court in such manner and under such conditions as the Court may think most effectual for ascertaining the causes and circumstances of the accident and enabling the Court to make the report hereinafter mentioned.
In sub-paragraph (7) it says:
The Court shall make a report to the Secretary of State stating its findings as to the causes of the accident and the circumstances thereof."—


I ask the House to note the phrase in the sub-paragraph—
and adding any observations and recommendations which the Court think fit to make with a view to the preservation of life and the avoidance of similar accidents in future, including a recommendation for the cancellation, suspension or endorsement of any licence or certificate.
It is quite clear that the distinction is made between finding the causes of the accident and recommending as to future administrative action.
I want to deal with the point which has been attempted to be made that a distinction can be drawn—I submit it cannot—between facts to be found and inferences to be drawn from the facts. I say that on the wording which I have read, the remit to the court is to find the causes of the accident, and if the inferences come within those words, then that is a matter for the court. I want to emphasise one point which I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary had fully in mind. He said that in this case, contrary to many others, the Minister himself appeared before the tribunal, represented not merely once by one advocate in his own capacity, but twice represented again on behalf of the local staff.
For this is not a case of a Minister appointing an inspector and asking him to give a report to that Minister, who is in a judicial capacity. This is a case where the Minister actually appeared and submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, and his counsel indicated to the court what were the views of the Minister and appeared on behalf of the civil servants who were affected. This is not a case of civil servants being in the background and not being able to defend themselves; they appeared by counsel, they could have given evidence and they were represented in the court. That difference would be a substantial distinction in the matters the Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned.
Another point which I think the House must take into consideration is that the Minister had been warned specifically of this very difficulty, and warned as short a time ago as 1st February, 1948, in a report submitted to him, upon which he gave his views in November, 1948—that is, actually after this accident had occurred and just before the inquiry. That was the report of the Newton Committee on Accident Investigation Procedure. If

the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to go up one by-pass, there was one member of that committee whose qualifications he has a special right to know, as have I, and who is also a great authority on air law and is a Member of this House. In that report, as I say, the problem was raised and made crystal clear. I think it is important, because I know the difficulty which I have myself in keeping abreast of various reports, and I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House have a similar difficulty. May I, therefore, remind them of one or two of the salient points in that Report? In paragraph 42 the committee says:
The gradual and progressive intervention by the State in the field of civil aviation, culminating in the Civil Aviaton Act, 1946, has inevitably forced the Minister into a position in which he is a directly interested party in the result of most accident investigations.
They go on to say:
It is, therefore, apparent that the Minister and his officers are in varying degree directly concerned in most accidents to civil aircraft in this country. We have had to consider whether it is right that in these circumstances the Minister should be in the position of having to decide whether a particular accident should be the subject of public investigation … 
They go on to discuss the point and in paragraph 43 they say, and they raise a point which this House will have to consider at some time:
This raises a question of policy affecting in some degree other publicly owned industries such as the railways and coal mines. It may well be that consideration should be given to whether the Minister responsible for any publicly owned industry should have any connection with the investigation of accidents within that industry"—
and I ask the House to note these words—
other than that of an interested party.
They continue to deal with the position of the Chief Inspector of Accidents, and in paragraph 45 they say—and at that time, when the committee was appointed, the predecessor of the present Minister was in office—that there had been no complaints as to the independence of the Chief Inspector of Accidents or any suggestion that any pressure had been put upon him. They accept that, as of course they would, but then they go on to say:
Nevertheless, supported by the almost unanimous view of the witnesses we have heard, including Air Commodore …


—Air-Commodore So-and-so who, I gather, is the Chief Inspector of Accidents—
we have come to the clear conclusion that the present position of the Chief Inspector of Accidents vis-á -vis the Minister and his Department is wrong in principle. The rule that no man should be judged in his own case is a basic concept of justice. It is as important that justice should appear to be done as that it should be done. We do not think it right either that the Minister should be required to exercise any discretion in connection with accident investigation procedure or that he should be directly responsible and answerable for the Chief Inspector of Accidents.
I ask the House again to note that phrase:
any discretion in connection with accident investigation procedure.
That is not a new matter, but the interesting thing is that when the present Minister received the report, having had it put in these weighty terms, he pooh-poohed it as follows, in paragraph 10 of his Memorandum:
With regard to the position of the Minister as an 'interested party' and that of the Chief Inspector of Accidents, which are considered in paragraphs 41 to 49 of the Report, the difficulty which the Committee envisaged is theoretical rather than real, as appears from the categorical statements in paragraph 45 of the Report.
Unfortunately, facts have caught up with imagination and the facts of this accident have shown that they are real and anything but a mere matter of theory.
The Minister has completely misunderstood and underestimated the difficulties which arise from his being an interested party. They have now arisen, and we say that he should have known that this distinguished his position from that of a Minister of the Crown, such as the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the like, who is given quasi-judicial functions by statute but is not an interested party. Such a Minister is the person who has to determine. He gets the results of a local inquiry in order to learn local views but, having done that, he has to make the decision according to his general purview of the situation in the country. This is quite different; this is a Minister appearing before a tribunal and asking the tribunal to consider certain matters and then, having done that, trying to act as a court of appeal.
I am very anxious, especially in view of what you said, Mr. Speaker, not to weary the House in any way, but I want to make it clear, because I believe this is a point of great importance which all quarters of the House have to consider in regard to the functioning of the Government. This is not a new matter. As long ago as 1932 the Committee on Ministers' Powers dealt with it and there are many parts of that report which bear on the matter. Again, I want to streamline it as far as I can, but there are certain matters which call for quotation. In dealing with the position of the Minister even in quasi-judicial matters the committee says, on page 76:
The first and most fundamental principle of natural justice is that a man may not be a judge in his own cause.
They go on to recommend, about three-quarters of the way down page 79:
Where it appears that the policy of the Department might be substantially better served by a decision one way rather than another,"—
and that applies where the servants of the Department may come in for blame—
the first principle of natural justice will come into play, and the Minister should not be called upon to perform the incongruous task of dealing with the judicial part of the quasi judicial decision as an impartial judge, when ex hypothesi he and his Department want the decision to be one way rather than another.
Again we find equally strong passages on page 80. In relation to these I do want to point out that even on the basis on which the Parliamentary Secretary claims to act, which I respectfully submit to him is a wrong basis—that even on that he would be excluded if these very wise words of the Donoughmore Committee were borne in mind.
There is one other aspect that I should like the House to consider. It is stated that there is a further ground of natural justice, and it is said:
It may well be argued that there is a third principle of national justice, namely, that a party is entitled to know the reason for the decision, be it judicial or quasi-judicial.
Here I would ask the House to consider what the Minister's action was. His statement to Mr. McDonald is one of the most extraordinary which has ever occurred in an official document.
You would not"—
says the Minister—
I am sure, wish me to go into the reasons which have lead us to this conclusion.


Apparently on that not the public, not K.L.M. who had come over here to appear at the inquiry, not even Mr. McDonald himself, was to know the reasons for which the Minister had overridden these findings.
There is the authority; and I have tried to make the point to the Parliamentary Secretary of the complete distinction which, I submit, exists between this case and the case of the action of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning with which we are all so familiar. I say once again I do not want any doubt about the point of view that, where the Minister has appeared in an inquiry, it is intolerable that he should try to act as a court of appeal. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are not going to say that Socialism means that that should happen. If they are, let them say it frankly.

Wing-Commander Millington: What has that to do with it?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If that is what centralisation is going to bring us to, then it is a very serious matter, and I hope that we shall get it quite clear that it is not the view of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—if that is the case.
I want to say only one word—because I do not want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to think I have not considered it, and he may have had it in mind in considering the next part of our Motion— on the analogous procedures which relate to shipping, railways and coalmines. With regard to shipping, broadly there is the distinction—I am not going into any details—that there is power under the Merchant Shipping Act for a re-hearing to take place in certain circumstances. That is why we have put that matter in the Motion, in order that it may be considered and that the House may have the advantage of different views on that point.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley-Shawcross): The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not included in his Motion the further power—I think under Section 474—which enables the appropriate Minister in effect completely to override the decision of the Wreck Commissioner in regard to negligence and at once to restore the ticket which the Wreck Commissioner has cancelled.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think, with great respect, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not on quite the same point. I am making the distinction between the findings and the administrative action which may be taken. I do hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider this matter also from the constructive view. I shall not complain if he makes a defence. Naturally, I fully understand that. But I do want the House to consider it from the constructive point of view. I want this procedure to be a credit to this country—something of which people coming to this country can feel able to say, "We have absolute trust in that." That is why I have introduced this matter. I want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to know that we have considered the possibility of a rehearing, and I should be very interested in his point of view.
He will remember with regard to railways that, as here, a court is established which is given powers for getting witnesses as at a court of summary jurisdiction. I would remind him on that point that, although there is no power in the Minister to ask that the matter should go to the court—or, in the old days, the Railway and Canal Commission—in the connected case where the Minister was making rules for the prevention of accidents there was a power, if anybody objected, for the matter to be referred to the court. That is why I introduced the possibility of appeal. Again, I should like to know the right hon. and learned Gentleman's views, and I should be perfectly prepared to consider them.
With regard to the coalmines, there is only there obligation to lay, but my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) has informed the House before, I think, that when he was at the Ministry safety measures were under consideration, and, I think—I am speaking from memory—they are still under consideration; but that is a matter which many hon. Members in all quarters of the House do want to see revised at the present time.
But the point I am making is this. In my view, so far as my information goes, there is no precedent for disagreement with a court of this kind. I have been unable to find any. I have asked friends whose experience in these matters goes back for many years, and I notice that


the Minister was unable to produce any precedent when he got the chance. So any one that has been discovered must be either of small measure or very lately found. That is the first point which I want to put to the House. I say that it is wrong on the regulations which we are considering; but it is also wrong on the wider point that it is contrary to natural justice, and contrary to the application of natural justice to the Government of this country, that the Minister should at once be a party, and arrogate to himself, in relation to the treatment of his own staff, the position of a court of appeal.

Mr. Paget: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman permit me a question? Suppose a servant of an operating company were criticised. Would not the operating company have, to decide either, "That servant retains our confidence. We do not agree with this report, and we are going to keep him," or, "We agree with the report and are going to sack him"? Why is the Minister's position different from that of the operating company? He has got to decide whether to retain his servants.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The operating company could not arrogate to themselves the position of a court of appeal. An operating company cannot come down to this House and say, "Although there has been an inquiry, although a dozen parties have been represented and stated their views, that inquiry is merely an advisory matter which can be accepted or rejected." An operating company could not do it. They can take what action they like. Many people have lost litigation and still thought they were right. Even the hon. and learned Gentleman may have been in that unhappy position on certain occasions. But that is quite different from the hon. and learned Gentleman, or his client, coming down, and saying, "We supplant the findings of the court and we substitute our own, for it is an advisory matter that can be swept aside."
It is rather a difficult subject to deal with quickly, and I should be most grateful if hon. Members would not occupy my time by interrupting, if they can avoid doing so. I always like to give way, as I think the House will agree, but I do make this appeal. Of course, if anyone

feels very strongly about anything and indicates that he wishes to interrupt, I will accept that that is the case and give way. If possible, for the moment I should like to continue uninterrupted, especially in view of what Mr. Speaker has said.
Having made that first point, I now wish to deal very shortly with my second, which is this. We are not retrying the inquiry. The kernel of the case I am presenting is that the Minister should not have retried the inquiry. Therefore, as far as my contention is concerned, all I have to show is that there was evidence on which the court could come to its decision. For the benefit of hon. Members who have not got the sequence of events in mind I should like to go over them again, but in view of the shortness of time I do not think it would be fair to do so. I therefore make the assumption that hon. Members in all parts of the House have got in mind the sequence of events covering the arrival of this K.L.M. airliner, with 30 passengers and 10 crew on board, coming into Prestwick.
At Prestwick there are two runways, one on the sea side coming in from northwest to south-east towards the centre, and another on the inland side coming in from the east to the centre of the airport. Let me summarise the position thus: the aeroplane was expected at 11.15 p.m., or 23.15 hours, and the pilot was first of all directed to come in on Runway 32—the runway on the sea side, which comes from north-west to south-east. He was talked down on to that runway—that is, he was given G.C.A. directions to come in—and when he came down to 200 feet he found that there was a cross-wind from the south-west which, in his view, made it dangerous for him to land on that runway, so he went on to try to land on the other runway, Runway 26, but to land on that runway under visual observation by the pilot, still expecting of course to get the reports of the conditions at the time. It was in that second—

Mr. Beswick: I should like to interrupt here, because this is very important. On what evidence does the right hon. and learned Gentleman say the pilot was expecting to get weather reports as he went down unless he asked for them?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The pilot was a most experienced pilot; one of the most


experienced living, as I think the hon. Gentleman will agree. He had been to Prestwick before, and the position was that there were periodic broadcasts of weather conditions in code which came a little after the half hour: a little after 23.00 hours, then a little after 23.30 hours. But in addition to that there was a "met." representative on the airfield making observations of the weather conditions. The "met." representative—who I think made his observations about 23.20 hours, and then they were reported into the control—reported the worsening conditions, the closing in of the cloud—he used the long word "deterioration"; and the hon. Gentleman, who knows far more about it than I do, will be familiar with the expression "closing in of the cloud"—and if the provisions of Form 2309 and the other forms had been followed, there should have been not only a code message to control, which would be broadcast at the periodic times, but a plain message which should in turn have been sent over the telephone to the pilot. If the hon. Gentleman wants the reference I will give it to him.

The Attorney-General: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say at what time?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Well, it was received by control.

The Attorney-General: But at what time? I am asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman at what time he suggests this message should have been sent? Is he referring to six minutes past 11, eight minutes past 11, or 20 minutes past 11?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: After 20.

The Attorney-General: Under what regulation should there have been any such message?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will follow it out. I was trying to answer the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) by giving a general picture, but I will follow it out.

The Attorney-General: I apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I must not interrupt him. I know it is difficult, and I do not want to be interrupted myself.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is difficult when one is trying to answer a question. I knew the experience and interest of the hon. Gentleman and I wanted to try to satisfy him. I am very anxious not to go into all the evidence, but my reading of the matter is that the "met." representative made the examination at 23.20 and then reported it to control, and control got it in code at somewhere about 23.30. I say they should have telephoned it at once.

Mr. Beswick: I am sorry to interrupt again, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the pilot had made a circuit expecting to get certain weather information. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman on what evidence he says the pilot was expecting such information unless he asked for it?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think I have answered the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Paget: No.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. and learned Gentleman really must let me develop my own point. Let us get it quite clear. As I say, we are not retrying the matter. We are merely considering whether there was evidence on which they could come to this conclusion. I do not want to avoid the question, but I do ask hon. Members to restrain themselves from interrupting, if they can, otherwise it is very difficult to get these times in order.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend, but on the question he is being asked, is it not clear that, when the captain failed to land on the runway he intended to land on and went on a circuit, it must have been quite obvious that something was wrong, and that he would then expect further information relating to the weather?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. I am sure he has put it far better than I could. If I had been given a moment or two to develop my argument I think I should have come to that point. The position is that a pilot in the position in which this pilot was, who had information that there were deteriorating weather conditions earlier, would expect when he had made this change to get further information.

Mr. Beswick: rose —

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No, I really cannot give way again. I should like the hon. Gentleman to follow the way it is put in the Report at paragraph 75, where it is stated that
about 23.30 on the night of the accident, the amount of cloud in the layer at 300 feet increased from 4/10th to 6/10th. That involved a substitution of 300 feet for 700 feet as the height of the ceiling.
In paragraph 103 it is stated that this fact was not communicated to the pilot at tower control nor was it sent to tower control in plain language by the meteorological observer. In paragraph 88 it is stated that this was in spite of the fact that special provision is made for certain terms dealing with the weather, including deterioration in cloud and visability, to be given in code and in plain language. In paragraph 89, it is stated that it was the observer's duty to prepare and send to the control tower another form on which the state of the weather is stated in plain language. Any information on the form which was sent to the control tower was to be stated in plain language.
In paragraph 102, it is stated that no one in authority had permitted the abandonment of this duty, but a practice had grown up by which it was not performed. On that, the young man making the observation was excused, but surely there was evidence on which the court could come to the conclusion stated in paragraph 102 as to the lack of supervision of the meteorological conditions at the time. They say:
… there was a grave lack of supervision in the meteorological office at Prestwick.
As to whether that was relevant was made clear by counsel for the Minister himself.

The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman observed that two counsel appeared. One was instructed by the Crown Agent to represent the public interest and the other was instructed by the Minister through other solicitors to represent the Minister's particular interest.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes, but the counsel appeared for the Minister and not for the Lord Advocate.

The Attorney-General: That is not so.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at

page 33 of the report he will see that it is stated:
Mr. H. R. Leslie, M.B.E., Advocate (instructed by the Crown Agent for Scotland) on behalf of the Minister of Civil Aviation.

The Attorney-General: This procedure was made public some time ago—over a year ago—and has been applied in this country and applied in this case in Scotland. The Minister is separately represented. If the Lord Advocate or the Attorney-General desires to come in, he is entitled to come in to represent the public interest. In this case, this gentleman was instructed by the Crown Agent, and I am told by the Lord Advocate—I am afraid that I do not understand the Scottish procedure—that he was entitled to come in, in the same way as the Procurator-Fiscal comes in in other accident inquiries. When he made his speech, he made it clear that he was there to represent the public interest and not to defend the Minister.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: This report has been published for some time. If these corrections are to be made, it would have been better if it had been done before and not in the middle of my speech. I do not mind. The Lord Advocate is here. I am sure that he would not have chosen a counsel who would make any irresponsible statements. The statements have a great deal of weight. If they were made on behalf of the Lord Advocate, I would not say that they would carry greater weight than if they were made on behalf of the Minister, but they would have great weight.
What he said was that it was clear in the view of some meteorological people that the weather prior to and during the material hours of 11.00 and 11.30—he used that terminology—was getting worse as regards cloud and visibility. He went on to say that it would be a bold assumption that a pilot flying his plane and approaching an aerodrome has time to use decoding. He said that he could not refrain from expressing an apprehension that when it is set upon a document that deterioration should be given in plain, then it should be given in plain. Finally, he said:
Is that a vital factor, Sir? The view has been strongly expressed in evidence that it certainly was, because to Captain Parmentier information of a ceiling of 300 feet would have meant one thing: 'I will not land'.


I do not mind if the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a distinction without a great deal of difference—that that gentleman was appearing for the Lord Advocate and the public and was not appearing, as we now hear, for Lord Pakenham. That was the view put forward by counsel for the Crown, and now the only basis on which the Minister of the Crown can defend this matter is to suggest that there was not the material and not the evidence on which that conclusion was arrived at. I have never heard of anything like it. The Minister himself, as I said, first of all gave no reasons. He then in a statement of 23rd November gave one reason. That is his expressed statement that the decision of the pilot to circle Prestwick at a height lower than the obstructions in the vicinity could not have been influenced by the action or lack of action of the staff of the Air Traffic Control or meteorological services.
The facts to which I have drawn attention and the summing up of Crown counsel blow that right out of the water. Then, of course, the Minister, changing his ground, went on to another suggestion as to the reason. Let it be remembered that he said that the first one, which I submit was blown out of the water, was made after careful thought. It was abandoned after a few days, and the second reason was given that because there was a periodical broadcast at six minutes or eight minutes after 11–25 minutes before the accident—when this aeroplane was 50 miles away and going at a cruising speed of 140 miles per hour—that was a sufficient answer.
I do not think that it is our function to retry this case. It is our function to demonstrate that there was ample evidence on which the court could come to this conclusion, and having come to the conclusion, it is indeed undesirable that the Minister should try to substitute his own conclusion. What confidence can be felt in the impartiality of our system of accident investigation if after that inquiry has taken place this substitution is going to take place. We must consider the effect Abroad. The need for an independent and trusted system of accident investigation needs little emphasis from me. Our own air services and the air lines of foreign countries—pilots and passengers—must depend on the effi-

ciency of the meteorological and control staffs at our airports. If a fatal accident occurs, every one at home and abroad must have complete confidence in the fairness and independence of the investigation which must follow. The Minister's action has shaken our confidence.
I do not want any mistake to be made either in this House or out of it. I believe that our meteorological services are as good as any in the world. I believe that our technical knowledge and experience of flying control and its aids are unsurpassed. I am certain that that service and knowledge will be used to the maximum effect at this airport and elsewhere, but I am not happy about the factor of investigation. I say that it is necessary to revise this accident investigation procedure. I say that the court should be made statutory. It could be done under the regulations, but the results of doing it that way have been unhappy; and it should be final in this sense. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman did not misunderstand the word—"final" in the sense of being free from interference by the executive. I do not mean "final" in the sense of deciding further civil actions, because, as the Attorney-General knows, there may be other defences, or there may be apportioning of negligence to take into account. It is the practice in Crown matters, where there is a court of inquiry, to accept the findings for large portions of subsequent litigation.
The point I desire to make is that a court of inquiry should establish the causes of an accident, and the Minister should not be entitled to say that the inquiry is merely advisory. He should not be entitled to say that he is the final person to say what are the causes of the accident; that they are causes which do not affect his own people. I am prepared to consider arguments the Attorney-General may advance in favour of something in the nature of a rehearing, or reference by way of appeal or otherwise to the court, if he thinks it is necessary for the Minister's position. I am prepared to consider that, and that is why we have put it in the Motion.
We say that the court should be made the statutory final arbiter as to causation of an accident and not the Minister affected. We cannot persist in a position where foreigners come over here,


incurring expense and much loss of time, to appear before these inquiries, and then find, in the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, that it is open to the Minister to accept or reject the findings because he does not like them, which means his Department does not like them. This unhappy incident has shown the necessity for a complete change.
I have mentioned our assets of knowledge and technical skill which can be fully deployed to advantage. But we have another great asset we prize and is the envy of other nations, and that is the excellence of our judicial search for truth and justice. If that asset is impaired or destroyed, then it is a very great disadvantage to our country. It is because the Minister's action has, for the moment, created that impairment that I consider him blameworthy in this matter, and it is for that reason I move this Motion.

4.55 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) ended on a non-political and public-spirited note in which Members on all sides of the House will be most ready to concur. I wish it had characterised some earlier parts of his speech. This Debate does not involve an ordinary political issue. If it had done so, I should have felt free, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman obviously felt free and obviously is free, to take a party and even a partisan line. It is an issue which raises considerations of an important constitutional and legal character. I myself, owing to the procedure which has been adopted—I shall refer to it later; it was publicly announced—am involved in protecting the public interest in the course of these inquiries.
In this case the public interest was represented in Scotland, contrary to the views which the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with great justification, I agree, sought to put to the House, not having read the speeches. The position was made clear by Mr. McDonald in the very first page of his report, which I suspect the right hon. and learned Gentleman of not having read, because if he had read it I am sure he would have drawn it to the attention of the House when I interrupted. On the first page of the report there is the statement:

Mr. H. R. Leslie, M.B.E., Advocate, instructed by the Crown Agent for Scotland in the public interest, took the leading part in the proceedings.
I have a similar interest in proceedings of this kind when they take place in England, and I will say later on how that interest is discharged.
I shall attempt to approach this problem, which is an important and serious constitutional problem, and one which raises most interesting questions concerning the general machinery of government to which we are accustomed here, in as non-partisan a spirit as I feel able. I will say at once that, while I do not accept the precise form of machinery indicated in the terms of the Motion, I have only one complaint to make about the principle of the proposal contained in the Motion, namely, that we should review this whole question of our accident investigation machinery, and it is that it is linked with, and indeed based upon, the Prestwick case and involves, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman quite frankly makes clear, a censure on the Minister of Civil Aviation. If this question as to the suitability of the present machinery had been raised by Members opposite at the time the Newton Report was published, and at the time the Minister issued his memorandum commenting upon that report and set out the procedure he proposed to follow, then I should have accepted these criticisms as being made in better faith than perhaps they are at this time.
May I quote from paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Command Paper, in which the Minister gives his reasons for not accepting the recommendations to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has drawn attention?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The Attorney-General has referred to the time when this matter was first raised. I am informed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) that he raised it twice on the Adjournment.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Attorney-General: Members opposite should be a little slow in saying "Hear, hear." Did the hon. and gallant Member raise the matter after the Newton -Report?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: In one case it was before, and in the other case it was after.

The Attorney-General: I am much obliged. I do not want to be unfair. The date given for the Minister's memorandum is November, 1948, and the date on which the hon. and gallant Member raised the matter, according to my notes, is November, 1947. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member can tell me when he raised this point.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the first Adjournment Debate was on Friday, 3rd July, 1947, and the second on 17th March, 1948? Does he realise that when the Newton Committee had reported to the Minister, we on this side pressed for the publication of their report, that the Parliamentary Secretary refused, and that it was not until November last year that it was published?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Attorney-General: Hon. Members should be a little slow in saying, "Hear, hear." They got rather vociferous in their rejoicing a moment or two ago when it was thought that I was mistaken in saying that the matter had never been raised in the House by any kind of Motion at all, or on the Adjournment, after the publication of the Newton Report. The Newton Report was published in November, 1948. Not one month, not two months, but 12 months had gone by in which Members opposite, if they had desired to make a Parliamentary criticism of the Minister's procedure, had the opportunity of doing so in the House. They did not do it.

Air-Commodore Harvey: rose—

The Attorney-General: I shall not give way again.

Air-Commodore Harvey: On a point of Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a very serious accusation against Members on this side of the House. The fact is that the Newton Report was written on 1st February, 1948, and was in the hands of the Minister for something like 11 months before it was published.

The Attorney-General: If that is the standard of intelligence which is to be

exhibited by hon. Members opposite in this Debate, then we shall not get very far. I do not see what reason there was for the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who was particularly interested in this matter, if he thought the decision of the Minister on the Newton Report was wrong, as expressed in the Minister's memorandum, not to raise that matter at any time between the beginning of last November and the present.
Here is what the Minister said, and what apparently was accepted by Parliament at that time, in the sense that Parliament acquiesced in it, a Paper was presented to Parliament and the Minister made a statement about it. No attempt was made in Parliament to challenge the Minister's decision as to the machinery he should adopt. This is the quotation:
The circumstances surrounding accidents to aircraft vary so infinitely that it is not possible to define a category for formal public investigations which would be satisfactory, practical and reasonably logical. Each case must be decided in the light of all the attendant circumstances and the requirements of the public interest. While it is considered that the right course is for the Minister to decide each case on its merits, it has been concluded, after a review of past practice, that there should be more Court Investigations in future, and in paragraph 16 below are set out certain specific criteria to which the Minister will give particular attention in so deciding.
With regard to the position of the Minister as an ' interested party ' and that of the Chief Inspector of Accidents, which are considered in paragraphs 41 to 49 of the Report, the difficulty which the Committee envisaged is theoretical rather than real, as appears from the categorical statements in paragraph 45 of the Report. The exercise of what is in a sense a quasi-judicial discretion, in addition to his usual administrative and executive responsibilities, is part of the normal functions of a Minister of the Crown and the Committee do not contend that there is any risk that the Minister would exercise his discretion dishonestly and decline to direct a public investigation lest misdeeds of his officers should come to light. Moreover, the fact that the Minister is answerable to Parliament for the exercise of his discretion is the best possible safeguard that it is properly exercised. Nor can it be seriously suggested that an Inspector of Accidents might so fail in his duty as to conceal blameworthy conduct by the employees of the Ministry.
I can understand that Members on all sides of the House are anxious about the situation which has arisen in the Prestwick case, and I do not complain that the matter is the subject of investigation today or the suggestion that we should review the whole of the machinery. When we have the Prestwick case out of the


way, when we have disposed of the complete misconceptions which not only exist about it, in the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby, but are, I think, widely held in the country; when we have shown, as we shall show beyond the possibility of doubt, that the conduct of the Minister is not open to the real attack which is being directed against it; when we have shown that the Prestwick case in itself is no ground for substituting new machinery for that which exists at present; once it is realised that there has been no question of the Minister acting as a kind of court of appeal, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said, but merely of exercising his constitutional duty as a Minister responsible to Parliament for the discharge of certain functions, I shall be only too happy to discuss with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby in what form better machinery might be established for the important task of investigating air accidents.
Now let me come to the criticisms which the right hon. and learned Gentleman directed against Lord Pakenham. There was one matter on which he made not, I think, no challenge but only a slight challenge, and on which I need make no defence. The Minister has fully agreed that the procedure he followed in making known his dissent was mistaken. I think myself that if a different procedure had been followed it is very unlikely that our present anxieties would have arisen at all. The Minister, if I may say so—and he fully concurs in this, and has apologised for it—ought to have made his communication to Parliament in the first instance; he ought, when expressing his dissent, to have stated clearly the reasons which, as he thought, compelled him to reach a different conclusion. He ought to have shown that in order that when his opinion, for that is what it was, was set alongside Mr. McDonald's opinion, for that is what it was, it could be seen that Mr. McDonald's opinion was quite manifestly wrong. In all good faith the Minister did not take that course, and he has recognised his fault and apologised for it.
I do not minimise the matter myself, but the real criticism which has been directed against the Minister is related to the substance rather than to this more

procedural point and, therefore, I shall leave that aspect of the matter, with the Minister's apology, in the hands of the House. Nor shall I take up unduly the point which the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby made about the time which the Minister took before he published his dissent. Some of it was occupied in negotiations with the Dutch Government about publication of the report. Mr. McDonald, having heard the evidence and having the whole matter fresh in his mind, took six months to make up his mind about it. The Minister, having to go through the whole thing afresh and having to read this volume of evidence and all the documents, took five months before he published the statement which he did.
I move from that to the real gravamen of the charge against the Minister, and it is that he is not entitled to dissent from the findings of a court of inquiry. That is the real matter which has given rise to so much public anxiety about what has occurred. I said "public anxiety." It is stange—I say no more—that there has been such confusion about the constitutional and legal status of this kind of tribunal in the minds of certain noble Lords and in certain newspapers which really ought to know better, but it is not strange that in the minds of the ordinary public there should have been great anxiety and misunderstanding, of which I am afraid occasional political advantage may have been taken.
We are rightly jealous of our system of justice in this country. No one must tamper with it, and the impression got about, largely I think because of the mistaken procedure which the Minister had pursued and partly for reasons of a more political kind, that something like tampering with justice had, in fact, taken place in this matter. That is a complete misconception. There are really two matters which the House has to consider here. First of all, the legal question of the Minister's legal rights in a matter of this kind, a question which, of course, by no means concludes the matter; and secondly, a question of constitutional propriety—to what extent should the Minister exercise these strict legal rights? The Minister has never for a moment claimed or considered that it would be proper for him to exercise the undoubted legal right which he enjoys, hot above anybody else but in common with every-


body else, completely to disregard the findings of these administrative tribunals. That he ought to act in these matters in a quasi-judicial capacity was something he himself asserted in that paragraph of the memorandum on the Newton Report, which I read just now to the House. For a Minister to act in a quasi-judicial capacity in matters in which he or his Department is concerned and interested is by no means an uncommon feature of our constitutional arrangements, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows far better than I do. Quite clearly, the Minister would have been wrong if he did not treat his position in this matter as a quasi-judicial position.
On the other hand, there are some—and hon. Members opposite who tell us they expect to form an administration some day ought really to have this matter in mind, because it is an important question of administration—who seek to exalt this quasi-judicial tribunal into a position of infallibility where its pronouncements, ex cathedra as it were, could compel the Minister to abdicate his own legal and constitutional responsibility to the Crown and Parliament. The Minister would have been equally at fault if he had accepted that proposition. That is the practical proposition which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put before the House, and which he would have to operate if at any time he occupied a seat on this side of the House.
Consider the strict legal position and where it would lead. Suppose the court had found—I am not suggesting that it should have found so, but there is no question at all that it could easily have found it—that this accident was solely caused by the negligence of the pilot. The representatives of the pilot or the representatives of that great airline, K.L.M., would have been immediately entitled—not to come to Parliament, because they cannot come here—to come to this country and in the newspapers publish, as the Minister did, a statement that they did not accept that finding. They would have been entitled to say that the court had completely misread the evidence and that the conclusion was entirely unjustified.
Suppose the tribunal had come to the conclusion that some individual, perhaps, employed at the airport had committed some breach of the regulation, for which

there could be a prosecution, and that, consequent upon that report, there were criminal proceedings taken against him, it would have been open to any two lay justices sitting in petty sessions to reach a diametrically opposite conclusion. Indeed, Mr. McDonald's opinion would have been completely irrelevant and inadmissible in any legal proceedings.
Cases of that kind have not infrequently occurred. Not very long ago, although it seems a long time now, I was concerned for the defence in one of these tribunals under a Statute to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. It sat for 31 days, and in the end published a report containing findings of the gravest kind, which, if well-founded, might have justified charges of a most serious criminal kind. In fact, charges were made, and the Solicitor-General appeared to prosecute. Apart from one quite technical offence, the whole case was laughed out of court. Quite recently a wreck inquiry, after a long hearing, decided that a particular ship was unsea-worthy. Immediately there were civil proceedings in the ordinary courts, and one of His Majesty's judges decided, that on the contrary, the ship was perfectly sound. That is a position with which we are familiar in the administration of our law.
The fact is that anybody involved in the inquiry, whether represented at it or not, is entitled, once the inquiry has concluded—not, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman quite incorrectly suggested, to cancel the findings or conclusions of the court or to over-ride them because the findings and the conclusions remain on record for exactly what they are, the opinion of the court—but to say that he disagrees with the court's opinion. Anybody can say that. I am not claiming for the Minister that full liberty of disagreement, although it is perfectly clear—and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman challenges it, I have no doubt he will do so now—that legally the Minister is entitled to disagree. I am not claiming that with constitutional propriety he ought to do anything of the kind; and that leads me to the question—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to put a false point because this is a high constitutional matter. Legally, in the


sense of anyone being able to get an injunction against him, I agree, but here the legality is completely bound up with the constitutional position, and there is no dichotomy.

The Attorney-General: One has to see what is the legal position, because the legal position of these tribunals is totally different from that of the ordinary courts of the land. Where there is a decision by one of the courts of the land, the Minister is bound by it; where there is a decision by one of these administrative tribunals the Minister is not legally bound by it; and then one has to see what is the constitutional responsibility and the proper constitutional practice for the Minister to adopt in regard to such matters. The Minister must approach the problem from quite a different point of view from that of the airline operator or somebody else who may be deeply concerned in, and represented at, the inquiry. That is quite manifest. On the grounds of public policy, because of the importance of maintaining his position of strict impartiality and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, of ensuring public confidence in the system of accident investigation, the Minister ought, as a constitutional matter, to accept the report unless there are weighty and compelling reasons which lead him to contrary conclusions.
I am not prepared to accept for a moment the view—I have never heard the proposition put forward by a lawyer before, if I may say so with respect, and on reflection I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept it—that the Minister can only dissent from a finding in the case of a tribunal of this kind if there is no evidence at all. That was not the view of the noble and learned Lords who addressed their minds to this question in another place. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am not allowed to quote from their speeches——

Mr. Quintin Hogg: And not allowed to refer to them.

The Attorney-General: —but I would call the attention of the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby to column 1156 of the Lords HANSARD where Lord Simon's view is recorded, about 20 lines after the commencement of the speech; and to Lord Reading's view, in column 1144. I do not think that the right hon. and learned Member, who is

very busy and preoccupied with other (matters, has had time to read those speeches. I cannot say that he has missed very much, but he has not had the opportunity of reading them. I shall come back to that matter. I have no doubt at all—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I can offer the right hon. and learned Gentleman a counter-reading. If he cannot read it here, I hope that he will read it in the night watches. It is column 1164.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. I am loath to interrupt this legislation by reference between two learned lawyers on the Front Bench, but surely the correct rule and practice of this House is not merely that we may not quote but that we may not refer to or comment upon what is said in the same Session of Parliament in another place. I suggest that these obscure, mandarin-like references are just as much out of Order as quotation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): An hon. Member is allowed to make references without quoting the actual words, and he is allowed to quote from any Ministerial statement of policy made in the same Session. It might be convenient if hon. Members went out and got a copy of the HANSARD of the Lords.

The Attorney-General: I shall not proceed—

Lord John Hope: Further to that point of Order. Surely reference oratio obliqua, such as has been made, is in Order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, I think it is. If I am entitled to express my personal opinion, it is that this Rule is almost out-of-date.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for protecting my interests in this matter, but I shall not pursue it. It would be an interesting thing to do. I shall point out some of the other inconsistencies of the right hon. and learned Gentleman when I come to them presently. I think it should be said that a Minister who appoints a court ought to abide, and in the ordinary case would abide, by the recommendations it makes. I shall state in a moment the principles upon which he ought to act, and did act in this case, but I want to make a point which is of great constitutional importance.
It is manifest, I would suggest, that the public could have no kind of confidence at all in a system of inquiry in which the report of an ad hoc court was absolutely binding even thought it was clear that it was mistaken. Just think of the manifest absurdity of it. Suppose the court had said in this case that the accident was due to the existence of some particular kind of approach lighting. I have no technical knowledge, but I am taking that as an example. Suppose they had said that the lighting ought to be abolished. The Minister, on the contrary, thinks that the lighting is a vital aid to safety. Is not he to be entitled to say: "I do not think the court were right in finding that this was the cause of the accident. I remain responsible for safety at aerodromes and I must make up my own mind about it, so long as I am left as the competent Minister to discharge these responsibilities to Parliament."
Suppose, and this is the present case, that the court said that the accident was due to some negligence on the part of officials. Is the Minister to dismiss those officials even though he thinks that the evidence leads irresistibly to a contrary conclusion? If an action for wrongful dismissal could be brought against the Minister, what possible defence would he have in those circumstances? That is this case. Mr. McDonald has said that in his opinion one of the contributory causes of the accident was the negligence of officials in the meteorological department at Prestwick. If that is true, those officials ought to be sacked and they ought to go for the rest of their lives with the knowledge hanging over them that they have contributed to the death of those 40 or so passengers in the aircraft.
How can it be right for a Minister responsible to Parliament, and responsible for the employment of those officials, to dismiss them unless he is satisfied that the finding of the tribunal is just? The proposition has only to be stated, I would have thought, for its manifest absurdity to be apparent, even to hon. Members opposite. Blind acceptance of a report of one of these administrative tribunals, or acceptance of the report not blindly but in spite of a realisation that it was mistaken, would not only not make for public confidence or common justice but it would be wholly inimical to the object

which the right hon. and learned Gentleman said so eloquently that he had in mind, the maintenance of safety in the air. The truth is that under these regulations, these courts are set up to investigate the facts and to express an opinion on them, and an opinion as to the cause of the accident.
In some respects, these courts are like a coroner's court, although I do not suggest too close an analogy, and although the legal effects of the decisions of these tribunals are far less than those of the finding of a corner's court. If the Minister comes to the conclusion that the findings are completely against the weight of the evidence he is entitled to publish a dissenting opinion. In the last resort, the public must judge. Obviously therefore the Minister will dissent from the opinion of a court only if the reasons are compelling and likely to satisfy the tribunal of public opinion.
There is nothing unusual in the criticism of a court or the expression of a difference of opinion as to its conclusions. I have any number of quotations here. I will mention only one of them which comes from one whom I suppose the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I regard as the greatest judge of this century, Lord Atkin. He said:
Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men.
I believe that Jeremy Bentham says somewhere that when the trial is over the judge is himself on trial. If that is the case under the ordinary law, how much more must it be so in the case of the administrative tribunals.
In the Command Paper which the Minister issued at the time of the Newton Report, and which the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield did not challenge in this House, 'he explained and expressly stated that his ultimate responsibility to Parliament for these matters would remain unimpaired. He cannot with propriety—I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman on reflection will concede that this must be so—abdicate that responsibility to a court established under these regulations. While, of course, he must retain his complete freedom in regard to any recommendations, as distinct from findings, which the court may make and while, if there is a disagreement between the assessors and the


president of the court, as there may well be, he has to make up his mind completely freely. Even a unanimous report as to facts and causes cannot be morally and absolutely binding upon him. I should have thought, where the court presents a unanimous report the Minister will only dissent from a finding of fact if there are compelling reasons either in the evidence before the court or any further material which has been brought to his notice since for thinking that the court was wrong. He will not lightly reject the opinion of the court unless he is convinced that it is manifestly wrong.
Moreover, the Minister has authorised me to say this—and this, I think, is new and important in this procedure—that he will not reject the finding of a court under these regulations without first taking the advice not only of his own experts but of the Law Officers in regard to the matter; but if after doing that there are weighty and compelling reasons for dissenting from the opinions of the court, then a Minister responsible to this House must have the courage to say so and must have the courage to place his opinion, with the reasons for it—I agree, with the reasons for it; I have made that point very clear—alongside the opinion of the court, with the reasons for that, and accept full responsibility to Parliament and to the public, who must judge between the two of them.
I am permitted to say that that is the view of the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friends here as to the proper constitutional position of Ministers of the Crown in connection with tribunals of that kind. There really is no possible doubt about it, and only a strange confusion of thought, or something perhaps even less worthy, can have led some people to take a different view. The proposition was stated in "The Times" the other day. There is nothing new in it. It was stated—and I concede that this was the view of "The Times"—as if Lord Pakenham had broken it, and I shall proceed to show, beyond any possibility of doubt I think, that he did not. This was the proposition:
Lord Pakenham"—
"The Times" said. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said exactly the opposite, but what "The Times" said is,

of course, no more and no less conclusive, than what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. "The Times" said:
Lord Pakenham, like every other subject, is undoubtedly entitled to point out fallacies in the reasoning of even the highest courts of law and a fortiori in those of a Tribunal of Inquiry, which is only quasi-judicial. But if he seeks to go further and declare as if by authority that a particular finding is wrong, then … he must either show that the finding he wishes to annul is unsupported by evidence or that it is plainly against the weight of the evidence.
That is where the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that "The Times" is quite wrong. I agree with "The Times" sometimes, and I certainly agree with "The Times" on this occasion. The Minister of Civil Aviation has always taken that view of his position in this matter and it was on that view that he acted in this case.
The question, therefore—not one which the House can re-try, of course, but one which has already been canvassed before it—is: Was the court's decision in this case against the weight of the evidence? There are those who have read some of the evidence and* none of the report and some who have read some of the report and none of the evidence, but I have had to make it my business to read every line of the 1,540 pages of shorthand notes, all the documents and papers in the case and the report as well; and while it is quite impossible to ask the House to go into all that and to re-try the matter, I think it is right that I should just call attention to the oustanding facts because they have not perhaps been presented in the issues which they raise very clearly to the House by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. First, as to the court's findings—

Mr. Marlowe: I understood the Attorney-General to refer to consultations between the Minister and the Law Officers. Can he tell the House whether, before he delivered what has been described as dissenting opinion, the Minister in this case consulted with the Law Officers?

The Attorney-General: I said that the arrangement that, as a matter of course, these matters would be submitted to the Law Officers for their formal opinion before any dissenting opinion was expressed by the Minister, was a new provision and a new stipulation in the accident


investigation procedure. I said that it was an important stipulation. I think it is. I shall come presently to the other interests which the Law Officers have in the conduct of these inquiries.

Mr. Henry Strauss: The Attorney-General said that this is an important and new point. I want to be quite clear about what he is now saying. He has just said that the Minister is completely free—in fact, he cannot divest himself of the responsibility—to decide the matter for himself. In that case, what is it about which he contemplates that he should consult the Law Officers?

The Attorney-General: In the end the Minister has still to discharge his own constitutional responsibility—that is quite clear—and he is not delegating it or transferring it to the Law Officers. What he will do is to submit to the Law Officers—I hope this is not a task which will occur very often—the whole of the evidence, the whole of the documents and the finding, and he will ask the Law Officers, if he is in doubt about the matter himself and thinks that perhaps he should dissent, to give their advice as to whether the findings of the court are against the weight of the evidence, and on that advice he will make up his mind. He is entitled, constitutionally to disregard the advice. I do not know quite what would happen if he did, but we need not pursue that. His constitutional responsibility is to decide the matter himself after he has received advice about it.
I will now remind the House of the findings of the court, from part of which the Minister dissented. In paragraph 173 the court said:
The accident was caused by the coincidence of a number of adverse circumstances.
I shall only mention two:
The absence of a uniform system regulating the conditions in which intermediate (deterioration) weather reports should be sent out prevented the aircraft from receiving intimation that the amount of cloud increased from 4/10th to 6/10th between 22.50 hours and 23.20 hours. The failure of the meteorological staff at Prestwick to enforce obedience of the order that reports of weather deterioration should be given in plain language to the Air Traffic Control Officer, and the latter's failure to pass on the information which he had received in code resulted in the omission of the words 'deterioration' and 'deteriorating' from verbal radio messages to the aircraft.

So far as the first part of the criticism is concerned, the Minister has not stated any dissent. I am bound to say—I think I am entitled to say it—that, having reviewed the evidence, I can see no ground at all for the criticism. The system being followed was a uniform system. It was recommended by I.C.A.O., the International Civil Aviation Organisation—P.I.C.A.O., as it then was—and it was followed by all international aerodromes in this country, and, I hope, in all foreign countries as well. The report expressly refers to it in paragraphs 85, 86 and 87, and in paragraph 108 it says that it was being complied with. How Mr. McDonald came to a totally different conclusion when he got to the end of his report I am afraid I am unable to explain to the House.
It is of vital importance—and I want to emphasise this to the House—that international procedures should be followed. That is of the highest importance. If some aerodromes give more information and send more messages, and in regard to different matters and other aerodromes send less, no pilot will know where he is. That is the whole purpose of these I.C.A.O. recommendations, that there should be standard messages and standard regulations. If one did not pursue that, complete chaos would result. There was no disobedience to any instruction which was relevant to this case.
That brings me to the second part of the criticism. It is true that on one of the weather report forms certain particulars stating that the weather had deteriorated during the period since the last report—that is, stated not as a forecast, that is quite clear, but as a comparison of the position at the time of that report with the position as it existed at the time of the previous report—that that information was not given in plain language on the form although it was given in code. The form, which was an old one, required that it should also be given in plain language. That was because the form was originally used for radio telephone messages in clear. That form had long been disused for that particular purpose, and it was now used only for wireless messages which are conducted in code. That is why the information was given in code.
In the case of radio telephone messages the information to be given was laid down under the I.C.A.O. recommendations,


which I have here, and did not include a statement that the weather had deteriorated. It contained particulars as to the actual weather conditions at the time of the signal and the pilot would know, of course, by reference to his previous report, that there had been deterioration if, in fact, that was the case. If he wanted a forecast of the weather conditions, either he—and he is in constant touch with the aerodrome—or the representative of his company, who was standing in the control tower beside the control officer, and at any moment was entitled to say, "Send this chap a forecast, send him further information, tell him the weather has deteriorated"—if the pilot wants further information of that kind, he asks for it and it will be given immediately. There is no doubt that he should have asked for that information in this case, but he did not. So the position in regard to the breach of orders is that at most there was a technical breach of orders in not providing in clear information which was not needed in clear and which would not have been used in clear. The criticism of the court that the supervision in the meteorological office at Prestwick was bad. seems, I am bound to say, entirely unjustified.
However, the real substance of the criticism that the court made was the suggestion that if, in a radio telephone message which was sent to him at eight, minutes past eleven, the pilot had been told that the weather had deteriorated, the accident would not have happened. That is the real complaint made by the court in this case, and just see what the position is. The truth is that the pilot knew at that time perfectly well that the weather had deteriorated. Only two minutes before eight minutes past 11 he had been told so in express terms in a wireless telegraph message which was sent to him and which the court concludes there is no doubt he received.
Moreover, the conditions of which he was informed at eight minutes past 11 really speak for themselves. Conditions had deteriorated. At 10.36 he was told that the lower layer of cloud was at 500 feet and only one-tenth in amount. At six minutes past 11 he was told that the lower cloud base had dropped to 300 feet, and had increased in amount to four-tenths, and that the visibility and ceiling were deteriorating. Does the House really

think that the omission of similar words in a message two minutes later, which again gave the low ceiling of cloud at 300, and the amount at four-tenths, would have made the slightest difference to this pilot? How could it possibly have done so? Manifestly it could not.
Twenty minutes later this pilot was below all that cloud, having been brought safely down to the aerodrome by the ground control approach arrangements, circling in full view of the lighted aerodrome with its approach lights and its runway lit up, less than 200 feet from the runway, and expected, as everybody thought, to land upon that runway. Why he did not, what was the cause of what he subsequently did—and I shall say something more about it in a minute—nobody will ever know. But that it was not due to the failure to use the word "deterioration" in a message at eight minutes past 11 when that word had been used at six minutes past 11 would, I should have thought, been perfectly obvious to everybody.
Certainly it was obvious to the only expert witness who was called in this case to give a general opinion on the whole matter. And who was that? That was Captain Malouin, who is the General Flying Superintendent of K.L.M., the chief of their North Atlantic Division. He was the expert selected for this purpose by K.L.M. as the man above all others who could give the court a useful opinion on what might be the causes of this accident. As an indication of the fairness of the Crown in this matter, that witness was called by Mr. Leslie, who appeared to represent the public interest, in order that K.L.M.'s counsel might have the advantage—and it is sometimes a great advantage—of cross-examining him. This is what Captain Malouin said on oath at different points in his evidence:
And at 2308 the figures were 4/10ths at 300 and 10/10ths at 700?—Yes.
So that that was some indication that the amount was deteriorating?—That the amount of low cloud cover was increasing, yes.
Wouldn't that be a factor in the captain of the aircraft's mind?—Oh, definitely, definitely.
And irrespective of the information passed to him, would he not have in mind the possibility that the 4/10ths at 300 might become 5/10ths or 6/10ths at any moment?—I am the first to admit that he would be on his guard, yes.
The deterioration that is reported is a deterioration which has taken place, presumably, up to the time of observation; is that correct?—That is correct.
Isn't the position this, that when Captain Parmentier received the weather report at 2308 he knew the ceiling or the cloud base amount was deteriorating?—We agree.
Are you suggesting that at that stage (i.e. 20 minutes later) a special deterioration message should have gone out to the aircraft informing the pilot that the ceiling amount at 300 was 6/10ths?—I would certainly welcome such information any time.
But the pilot knows that it might become that at any moment, doesn't he?—He does. I freely admit he knows that possibility exists; there is no argument on that score.
And that that is a factor which he must take into account throughout his approach to the aerodrome?—It is one of the many factors, yes.
May we not take it that if a pilot gets a message that there is 4/10ths cloud at 300 he will realise that at any minute that 4/10ths cloud may increase to 5/10ths?—Yes.
Is information that there is a level of 4/10ths of cloud not a threat of a ceiling?—A 4/10th cloud cover does constitute a threat to a ceiling."
and then he ended—and this is what we think summarises the position—this great expert of international repute, who was called because K.L.M. thought he was the best man available—
I am not in a position to state, and I am not leaving here under any impression, that this acccident was meteorological. Neither was it pilot error. I don't even say that the truth lies somewhere between.
Now Lord Simon in another place—as the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am sure, has appreciated—realised that very well. The tribunal found expressly—and here the right hon. and learned Gentleman was going into something which was quite irrelevant to our discussion here—that after eight minutes past 11 there was no significant change in the weather and no dereliction in duty. That is what they found.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Sir D. Maxwell Fyfeindicated dissent.

The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should read paragraph 108 if he does not agree. Their criticism related to the failure to state that there was a deterioration at eight minutes past 11. If that finding that there was a failure at eight minutes past 11 was wrong—I hope I have shown it was wrong—then the case against the Minister completely goes.
Lord Simon, in order to establish that the Minister ought to have accepted Mr. McDonald's opinion, proceeded to attempt to demonstrate that Mr. McDonald was obviously wrong. I am

sure that Lord Simon greatly regrets now lending his great authority to so unfortunate an attack. I cannot quote Lord Simon on the Minister, but I am obliged to Mr. Deputy-Speaker for saying that I might at least paraphrase him. Hon. Members can see the passages in columns 1162 and 1163 of the Lords HANSARD.
Lord Simon said, not once, but three times, in effect this: that the material time was 11.30, not eight minutes past 11 or six minutes past 11; that time, he said, had nothing to do with the matter at all. It was 11.30 that was important, when this experienced pilot was circling the aerodrome. That, he said, was the issue, and what happened at 11.6 or 11.8 had nothing to do with it. That is Lord Simon's opinion and with great respect I agree that Lord Simon was right. [Laughter.]

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Laughter will not help the dead.

The Attorney-General: The real question in this disaster was, of course, as to what happened after that, after the pilot got below the cloud base at 11.30. The position was that at 11.32 the pilot, in spite of K.L.M. instructions to fly at 700 feet, in spite of a K.L.M. warning that he was not to circle to the east of the aerodrome because of high land there, flew at a dangerously low level and collided with the electric pylons, which were only 400 feet high, when he should have been at least 700 feet high—300 feet above them; and he flew at that low height in the forbidden area in respect of which he had been warned that the ground was high.
It may be that the reason for that—I do not attempt to explain what was the reason—was that he had been provided, as the report says, with false and misleading charts on which there was a spot reference to the height of that land as being 45 feet and not 450 feet, as, in fact, it was. But the question was, why did he do it? The tribunal decided that whatever the cause was so far as Prestwick was concerned, there was no blame after eight minutes past 11. Lord Simon was perfectly right in saying that what happened at eight minutes past 11 had nothing to do with it. That is precisely what the Minister of Civil Aviation said,


and all that he said; and that is what this storm is about. The Minister is very glad to have his conclusion confirmed by so high an authority as Lord Simon.
I would be content to leave the matter there but for the fact that Lord Simon—and now, apparently, the right hon. and learned Gentleman—seemed to lay great stress upon what happened between eight minutes past 11 and the accident at 11.32. I have explained part of what happened. The pilot was brought down to the areodrome under the ground approach system and was within a distance which is estimated at between 50 and 200 feet of the lighted runway on which it would have been possible to land, but then he went up again. There was nothing to have prevented him following his instructions unless there was some defect in the aircraft; nothing at all to have prevented him soaring up and within a minute reaching a height of 600 or 900 feet. But he did not do that, and I want to call attention to the evidence in regard to that mysterious period although, as I have shown, it is irrelevant to the real question in issue, which is, were the Prestwick aerodrome staff to blame at eight minutes past 11?
Lord Simon seems to think that an intermediate weather report ought to. have been sent out to the aircraft by the Air Traffic Control during that period, but, as is stated—I draw these paragraphs to the attention of the hon. Gentleman who is to reply—in paragraph 85 of the report, the meteorological office order, under which the meteorological office at Prestwick was acting at the time and which complied with the international regulations of I.C.A.O., of which the hon. Gentleman is no doubt fairly familiar—and I am familiar with the particular regulation applicable to this case; the Report states that the Meteorological Office was complying with the general orders in regard to the matter, which themselves complied with I.C.A.O. procedure.
Those arrangements laid it down that an intermediate report had to be supplied in conditions which were specified—not otherwise, but in conditions which were specified—one of which included a change of ceiling from three-quarters or less to three-quarters or more of cloud coverage. The weather prevailing at the time did not

satisfy those conditions. There had been no significant change, Mr. McDonald says, and there was therefore no duty on the meteorological officer to send out an intermediate report. Paragraph 108 of Mr. McDonald's report expressly says that there was no failure of duty on the part of the observer in this respect.
The accepted practice—the House will wonder why it was not followed in this case; it is so important in this matter to adhere to international practice and regulations—is that the pilot asks for an intermediate report or for a forecast or for any other information if he wants it, or the company's officer, standing by the control officer in the control tower, says, "Something is happening to this chap. Why has he not landed? He looked as if he was going to. He was down to within a very short distance of the runway. Let us speak to him and find out what is up." Then there is a radio conversation. They are in constant radio-telephone communication, but unless the pilot asks for information or there is some reason to think—which there was not—that there has been a breakdown, it is contrary to the accepted practice for intermediate messages to be sent out when there has been no significant change in the weather conditions.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Has the Attorney-General asked his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary how often in the years since the end of the war have the companies' representatives in the control tower actually given advice to flying controllers? Is it done in fact, or are they there merely to answer questions if they should be asked?

The Attorney-General: I made that inquiry not of my hon. Friend, but of the experts whom I have consulted in this matter, before addressing the House. I am told—and the hon. and gallant Member probably knows more about the practice than I do—that it is quite a common practice for the representative of the company, who goes right up to the control tower, particularly in bad weather, to ask for information, and for this reason. Different operating lines have different regulations. K.L.M. had a particular regulation about not going below the ceiling in certain circumstances. That was a regulation not known, and not one that could have been known, to the control


officer at the aerodrome. For that purpose, the representatives of the operating lines are present in the control room in order to be able to see that whatever information they think is relevant is sent to the pilot if they think he needs it. But in this case the operators' representative, who was standing beside the control officer, hearing every word that the man spoke into the telephone in communication with the pilot, said in his evidence that in his view the whole procedure in the talk-down was quite normal.
What those who seek to sustain criticism of the Minister have to do is to show that Lord Simon is right in thinking that the tribunal were wrong in holding that what happened at eight minutes past 11 contributed to the accident and that the tribunal were also wrong, but that Lord Simon was right, in holding that what happened at 11.30 contributed to the accident. Well, that is the whole matter and I would certainly say, and I really feel no doubt about it, that the Minister did what it was his duty to do; he expressed dissent from an opinion, which I do not say there was no evidence to support, but which was clearly erroneous and against the whole weight of the evidence which was canvassed before the tribunal.
Now I pass to the other part of the Motion and say a word about that. The Motion proposes new procedure, but in so far as it seeks to make the findings of the new court which it is suggested should be set up final and binding findings, the Government cannot accept it for the reason I have already stated, that the findings of such a court cannot be binding on a Minister if he is to discharge his constitional and statutory duties to Parliament and to the Crown, When I was considering the matter with the Minister some time ago—this whole question of accident investigation machinery—I thought it right, having regard to the importance of open and impartial investigation, to stipulate that the Attorney-General should be given particulars of all accidents involving investigation by an inspector so that he should have full access to all the evidence and, if he desired to intervene in any inquiry—not to defend a Department, or represent it, but, if need be, to attack it and to represent the public interest should be able to do so.
In fact I did appear under a different procedure, not this, before the Newton, Report was published, and I did attack and cross-examine officials and others in a way which I dare say was not wholly congenial to them. Almost week by week I receive reports of accidents in an initial stage so that I can form a view whether the public should be separately represented in the inquiries.
I feel myself that that provision, coupled with the new provision that the Law Officers' opinion shall be taken before there is any dissent, does constitute reasonably satisfactory machinery at the moment, but I certainly do not say that nothing better could be evolved. The truth is that the Minister, both before and, more particularly since, the Newton Report has been actively reviewing these existing rules, which were made a very long time ago, in rather different circumstances, and I myself, as well as the Treasury Solicitor, have been in frequent consultation in the course of this last year on the procedure to be adopted.
Furthermore, just recently, since the Prestwick Report—I think in fairness I ought to say that—there has been a meeting between the Lord Chancellor, the Minister and myself at which a discussion about alternative proposals which the Minister had put forward, took place. I hope I am not disclosing improperly any secret in regard to that; I do not think so. The point I want to make is that, so far from adopting an attitude of obstinate opposition to a revision of the existing arrangements, the Minister has the matter very much in mind and the review he had already commenced before this matter arose will be pursued.
But we must discuss this matter on its merits and not as a peg on which to hang criticism of the Minister in regard to the Prestwick case. As the House knows, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, there is procedure for accident investigation under various statutes. I do not think any of them is applicable or appropriate to air accident investigation. In this case there are questions of Ministerial responsibility which did not arise in those cases and also, which is most important, large questions of international obligation and responsibility on the part of the Government, and to some extent it is a case of solvitur ambulando.
But there ought to be no political difference between us on the case once everyone is satisfied that the criticism of the Prestwick case is based on a complete misconception. Once that is out of the way, there should be no political difference of opinion between us and all of us, to whatever party we belong, ought to assist in constructing the best procedure possible. The Minister of Civil Aviation, the Lord Chancellor and I are very ready to discuss with the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby, or anyone on the opposite side of the House, in an informal way what better arrangements could be established—better than those that exist—and I have no doubt that they could be established. I would be only too glad to have the advantage of the assistance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in discussing this matter, because it is very difficult, in the absence of any existing pattern, to know what it would be best to do.
Subject to that point, that these administrative tribunals cannot give a final and binding decision which fetters a Minister in his constitutional responsibility to Parliament, I at once concur that the present system is by no means perfect. We have got to find a better system, but we ought to do it in a non-political way and, to show that hon. Members opposite are approaching this problem, this important problem of accident investigation procedure, in a non-political way and that no attempt is being made to perpetuate for political purposes the unhappy misconceptions which exist about the Prestwick case, I hope that they will not press this Motion to a Division.

6.8 p.m.

Air-Commodore Harvey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a great advantage in so far as he has been able to examine all the evidence in considerable detail. We on this side of the House and hon. Members opposite have only been able to read the report and various documents and letters to the Press—

Mr. Beswick: Has not the hon. and gallant Member seen the report available in the Library of this House since last Friday?

Air-Commodore Harvey: Not in the detail which the Attorney-General has.

The Attorney-General: A request was made that the shorthand note should be made available in the Library. I understood that the request had been made and that it was complied with. If it is said that it has not been complied with, I should deplore the fact. I thought it had been done.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I am not questioning that—

The Attorney-General: Perhaps the explanation is that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has read it and is sitting on it.

Mr. Paget: There are three copies.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Air-Commodore Harvey: There is nothing to withdraw. The Attorney-General said earlier that he hoped we would approach this question of aircraft accidents in a non-party spirit. I think that if he examines the Debates on this subject, he will find that in the whole lifetime of this Parliament it is the one subject which has been discussed in a non-party spirit. Time and again hon. Members on both sides of the House have tried to give information which would enlighten the previous and the present Minister. The Attorney-General complains that I did not challenge the Newton Report. The fact is that on 17th March, 1948, at Question Time I put a Question to the Parliamentary Secretary—

The Attorney-General: The report was not published.

Air-Commodore Harvey: —the Attorney-General will allow me—because he thought he scored some points—the fact is that the Newton Report was sent to the Minister in February of that year and a description appeared in "The Times" about March last year. It may be asked where they got the information. I do not know, but events proved that their report was accurate in almost every detail. We then put Questions to the Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) followed up with a supplementary question in which he asked:
Would it not be much more satisfactory to publish this report in proper form than to leave it to a report in ' The Times' newspaper?


Now that that report has been published in that paper, is he going to implement at least one or two proposals?0
The Parliamentary Secretary replied:
No, Sir, I cannot agree that the report has been published. An intelligent anticipation of a section or one part of it may have been published. This is a report of a sub-committee to a consultative council. The decision in regard to these matters is taken by the Minister and he must take full responsibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 2092.]
We were led to believe that the report as such was not being accepted by the Minister of Civil Aviation. The result was that on the occasion of that Question to the Parliamentary Secretary I gave notice that I would raise the matter on the Adjournment. I did so on 14th April—I gave the wrong date during the Attorney-General's speech—because I was under the impression that the Newton Report was not in the main being accepted by the Minister of Civil Aviation. I do not intend to quote from that Debate at length, but I will quote a few lines of what I said on that occasion.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary why his noble Friend has refused to accept the findings of the Newton Committee.
That was common knowledge in aeronautical circles.

The Attorney-General: I think that I can save time. I quite realise that prior to the publication of the Newton Report the hon. and gallant Member had taken an active interest in this matter in the House. I realise that he has subsequently written letters to the newspapers about it. The point I made—I was making it of hon. Members opposite generally, and not with special reference to the hon. and gallant Member, although he is particularly interested in the problem—was that after the Minister had, in November, published a reasoned statement of his reasons for not accepting certain of the Newton Report proposals, that position was acquiesced in by this House to the extent that it was not made, as it could have been made, the subject of any challenge.

Air-Commodore Harvey: That is all very well, but we have been debating and discussing this matter off and on for something like three and a half years. The Minister took 10 months to consider the Newton Report. We were given the impression, and more or less told, that

the findings were not to be accepted. When that came out in the memorandum to which the Attorney-General has referred, we knew only too well that it was no use battling against the impossible where the Government were concerned. We had already made our challenge and said that we did not agree. If I may continue with my quotation of what I said after having read the article in "The Times," I added:
He may have had very good reasons for not accepting them. It is entirely a matter for his Minister. But is he afraid of losing some authority if he accepts these recommendations? If so, will he say so frankly to the House? Will he publish the recommendations so that those in civil aviation and hon. Members of this House may know what they were? That Committee worked extremely hard to get all the facts available and make their recommendations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 1127.]
That was a challenge after the report was in the Minister's hands but not after publication. I will not pursue the point any further, because the Attorney-General is obviously splitting hairs on the matter.
I do not intend to go into great detail as to how this accident took place. I should like to be able to do so and give some views but any of us who tried to put ourselves in the position of Captain Parmentier on that occasion, when he was 200 ft. up on his dummy approach, would find it difficult to visualise what may have been going on, what was happening when he made the decision to go round again and land on another runway. One can only suppose that he did so because of a cross-wind. There may have been at the back of his mind the thought of some small defect of engine or oil temperature which was just enough to make him feel "I must get the machine down at all costs." One does not know.
Having got below cloud, he had to proceed with what he had already started. I do not think that the aeroplane should ever have been below cloud. I do not want to be critical but I do not think the aeroplane should have ever been put in that position. The captain of the aircraft must, although the poor fellow has gone, bear some responsibility, but I would say only "some." Whatever the facts are about the giving of weather reports, etc., all I can say is that in the Royal Air Force, which have considerable experience of this subject, we know that on that part of the coast near Prestwick


or on any part of our coast the weather can change in three or four minutes. One can find low cloud coming down while a pilot is on his way down,

Mr. Beswick: In fairness to the people who have been criticised, would not the hon. and gallant Member say that that possibility is covered in the regulations, which provide that additional weather reports should be given if the cloud passes from under three-quarters to over three-quarters coverage?

Air-Commodore Harvey: With all experts it is difficult at night to say how many tenths of cloud there are. I should like to err on the side of safety in taking any opinion, however good the official might be.
For the last three or four years the British Air Line Pilots' Association and the Guild of Air Pilots of the British Empire have continually put forward their views on this subject. They felt that the system which provided that the Minister should be shouldered with this responsibility was completely wrong, and that is what we have tried from time to time to tell the Parliamentary Secretary. On 3rd July, 1947, during another of these Debates very late at night—I think the Parliamentary Secretary held office at that time—I said:
As I see it, the Inspector-General's inquiries are really fact-finding inquiries and the President has not the power to subpoena witnesses or take evidence on oath. That is the real weakness of the whole thing. In fact, I think the Inspector-General is in a very embarrassed position. He is employed by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and he has to investigate accidents where the Ministry themselves might be involved and might well be to blame. He is really, in fact, acting as both doctor and coroner, which is not a situation which should be allowed to continue.
Later on, I said:
Many of these accidents are near misses. … I would like to put before the Parliamentary Secretary a few suggestions for consideration by himself and his right hon. Friends. The first is that inquiries should be held in public. The second is that they should be presided over by a president with legal qualifications.
That has been done.
The inquiry should have power to subpoena witnesses and to take evidence on oath. The body holding such an inquiry should be entirely dissociated from the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Air Ministry. It could perhaps, if necessary, come under a Law Officer

of the Crown who might well run a small office with a team of workers to work independently of the Ministries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1947; Vol. 439. c. 1664–6.]

The Attorney-General: The hon. and gallant Member will agree that, apart from the suggestion that the body to hold inquiries should come under a Law Officer, which I am bound to say I should not welcome, everything that he has suggested there—I previously read what he suggested—has been done?

Air-Commodore Harvey: It is not entirely dissociated from the Ministry of Civil Aviation because the Minister of Civil Aviation still carries the responsibility. Otherwise he would not be the court of appeal to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred in his opening speech.

The Attorney-General: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member suggested at that time, and I do not know whether he is doing so now, that the Minister should, in his executive action and responsibility to Parliament, be finally bound by the findings of that tribunal however it was constituted.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Had it been under a Law Officer of the Crown, I should have been satisfied to leave the matter in his hands once the inquiry had been started. I should have thought that that would have been fairer to the Minister, bearing in mind that there might be litigation and insurance claims in which it might be an embarrassment for him to be involved if such litigation or claims were pursued by a certain operating company. I think it would have been better to have put the matter under another Government Department, preferably that of the Attorney-General.
There have been certain criticisms about Prestwick. Although the Attorney-General gave the impression that no one was wrong, I should say, after reading the evidence, that the situation was not right by a long way. I do not want to bring into the discussion a boy of 18 who is a meteorological observer and who was quite rightly exonerated at the inquiry. He had only six weeks' training. He may be a brilliant lad and may do this work very well. He was the official observer at Prestwick. I suggest that the Government look into the question of the employment of meteorological officials. Many of us


have been far from satisfied with that service for a long time, partly because those in it are underpaid. We shall not get the best men in the jobs by paying them miserable salaries. I should like to see better remuneration and more stringent training given to these officials.
Fortunately, flying is becoming safer. In the last two years statistics have shown that. After that spate of accidents at the end of the war, they have become less and less, but accidents will take place from time to time; that is inevitable. But as my hon. and learned Friend has said, we have to instil confidence at home and in other countries. Once that confidence is lost, it will take a tremendous amount to recover it. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government to consider this whole matter. He has said that he is prepared to go into discussions, but there should be a commission or something similar set up to report again and even, if necessary, to go over the work done by the Newton Committee, whose report I consider was excellent. They took endless trouble and a lot of evidence, and made one recommendation which I think has a bearing on what has happened recently. On page 30. at paragraph 89, they stated:
Under our proposals, at a Commissioner's Inquiry, the Minister will be in the same position as any other interested party, save that we think it should be specifically laid down that he shall be deemed to be a directly interested party and entitled to appear as such at every Commissioner's Inquiry.
I would couple that with what was said a few minutes ago.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, referring to the length of time taken by Mr. McDonald, said that he did not know what was happening in those months.

The Attorney-General: Not as any criticism. I only mentioned it because the Minister was criticised for having taken rather a long time to make up his mind. I am not criticising.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Reading one of the reports, I did see that Mr. McDonald and the assessor asked to see certain equipment—I think there were two engines in particular—and I should like to ask why those engines were removed. I think they were sold for scrap. I think it is vital in these accidents, after the official investigation has taken place, that all the equipment should be retained

until the whole matter is finally cleared, up.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate that the operators have some responsibility. They might be very much concerned about finding the cause of the accident. If, in fact, the engines had been examined by the Inspector of Accidents, who did examine them and was satisfied from his point of view, surely it is only fair and reasonable to let the operators have what is, after all, their own property to examine it from their own point of view.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I quite agree, but the fact was that Mr. McDonald and the assessor asked to see the engines, and they were not available. Two of them went to Holland and I understand that two were sold for scrap. Quite rightly, the K.L.M. operating company should have every facility to examine their own equipment, but that examination could have taken place on the spot. The equipment ought not to have been taken out of the country until the inquiry was completed.
I hope that the Government will lose no time in proceeding with this matter of setting up an inquiry to overhaul the whole system of investigating these air accidents, because we cannot afford to lose ground again. If it should happen again, we want such inquiries to give the impression abroad that the British system is second to none. I shall refrain from criticising the Minister of Civil Aviation. It is not what I should have done if I had been in his position and I should not have done it in the way he did it, but I think it has taught him a very sharp lesson, if I may say so most humbly, and I hope we shall have a better system in the future.

6.24 p.m.

Wing-Commander Millington: I have been drawn to my feet by a remark made by the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite), who is not in the Chamber at the moment. During the latter part of his speech the Attorney-General was pointing out that, by a rare coincidence, he and Lord Simon were in complete agreement on one aspect of this case. There was some applause


from hon. Members at the rarity of this occurrence, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in a loud voice, said, "That does not help the dead."
I consider that to be an attitude of mind to bring to this Debate which is wholly improper in the circumstances of the tragic matter we are discussing. It is a reflection however of an attitude of mind which is not confined solely to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is an attitude of mind which seeks to get a party political advantage out of an incident of this character to the detriment of that very confidence in British civil aviation which the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) says we must seek to establish in the world.
It is true that we must start our deliberations thinking first of the victims of this accident and taking as the first duty of Parliament the consideration of how best we can learn from its lesson to prevent such an accident ever happening again. It is of course the first duty of the Minister himself to think, when he receives the report of the tribunal which he set up, "What are the facts, and what conclusions can we draw from these facts which will help us to prevent such an accident happening again?"
I ask those who are seeking to press this Motion to a Division, which implies censure of the Minister of Civil Aviation, whether they think from their examination of the evidence and from the Debate we are hearing in the House this afternoon, that there was anything in the action of any employee of the Ministry of Civil Aviation which contributed to this dreadful accident; and whether there is anything in the subsequent behaviour of the Minister himself which implies that he has not taken full advantage of the evidence which was given before that inquiry or that he has not made such an adjustment to procedure as to prevent such an accident happening again.
I believe that whilst it is true, as the Attorney-General has said, that there is room for subsequent discussions about a new procedure for accident investigation, as the constitution exists at the moment it is comparable with the procedure which operates not only in the Royal Air Force, but in all other cases

where a responsible officer or Minister initiates an investigation into transport accidents that involve loss of life. So in this case the constitutional procedure has properly been carried out and the Minister has an absolute right to disagree with any or all of the findings.
What would have happened if this accident had taken place in a machine owned and operated by the Royal Air Force? It would not have been a Minister, it would have been the Air-Officer-Commanding the Group operating that machine who would have established a court and ordered an inquiry. The court would have taken the evidence, and it would have summarised its conclusions and remitted them to the officer ordering the investigation. That officer would have an inalienable right to reject any of the conclusions at which the court may have arrived if, in his wisdom and on his assessment of the evidence, he failed to accept those conclusions. So in this case has the Minister of Civil Aviation.
There is one other aspect of this case which must also be considered. The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby said that this sort of thing tends to lessen the confidence of the world in British aviation. If that were true, if in fact the findings of Mr. McDonald were accepted by the people in Holland who are so grievously and intimately concerned with this fatality, I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman how he accounts for the fact that no civil action for damages has so far been initiated by the next of kin or the representatives of those who were lost in the accident. In fact, if such an action were initiated and if a writ were issued against the Minister of Civil Aviation, then it would clear aside this suspicion of lack of confidence which is so often being created, disseminated and fostered by Members of the Opposition because they see in all these incidents the foreshadowing of the General Election campaign. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite dissent. They dissent and wave their wise-looking heads as though I had said something outrageous.
If a comparison were made between the comment upon this accident in the newspapers of Great Britain—many of Which have a vested interest in a public scandal just before the Election, which


might involve the resignation of a member of the present Administration—and the newspaper comment in Holland, where they have not such an interest in a scandal in British Governmental circles, it would be found that the attitude of the Dutch Press was far more charitable to the Minister of Civil Aviation than the attitude of large sections of the Conservative Press in this country.
There is nothing in this incident which can properly shake the confidence of those who travel in aircraft in the British Isles and, in particular, those who go to the aerodrome at Prestwick. There is nothing in this matter which can shake the confidence of those who operate or travel in aircraft which use the facilities provided by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. If in the course of the Debates in this House and in another place it has been revealed, particularly by those who have given learned legal advice upon this subject, that some revision and some discussions are necessary on the procedure for taking evidence and inquiring into accidents of this character, then let that be done after the Debates and discussions of this accident are cleared out of the way. Let it be done dispassionately and impartially without involving the credit and the reputation of a Minister of the Crown, for only in that way can any lost confidence be restored.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope that the Attorney-General will forgive me if I begin by trying to help him on a point of almost infinitesimal importance. He may have been corrected by the Official Reporter, but I think he will find if he reads HANSARD carefully that on at least one occasion he said—and it is a thing awfully easy to do—"eleven minutes past eight" when he meant eight minutes past eleven. I think he will find that at least once he got it the wrong way round, and it might be rather baffling in the report.
I would not for a moment address the House as an expert upon aviation although in that matter I have some expertness. I dare say I am the only Member of the House who has survived three total crashes. I may say that I was not driving the machine myself on any one of the three occasions. I have also another slight expertness. 1

was born, almost, and brought up for the early years of my life on board a tramp ship of which my father was master. Therefore, I am more deeply penetrated than perhaps almost anybody who has not lived in those circumstances can be, with the immense significance, more almost than that of human life, of repute to ship's masters and persons in similar situations.
I do not wish to attempt what I respectfully venture to think perhaps the House has rather excessively done this afternoon. I do not wish to attempt to re-try the case. That does not seem to me, with respect, the most useful way in which we can approach the matter. I dare say that I shall be a little disjointed, and I hope that the Attorney-General will forgive me if I am. I propose to begin by going through shortly some things he said and then coming to some other things which I think important, and that may lead to some logical discontinuity.
First of all, about the Dutch newspapers. I am very sorry that that matter has been introduced. I think it would have been better not to introduce it but, since it has been, I think it necessary to say that Dutch is not one of the languages I read. Perhaps there are hon. Gentlemen here who do. My information is that there have been expressions of surprise in important Dutch papers that a Minister as responsible as this Minister appeared from that distance to be for a matter of this importance should have continued in office.

The Attorney-General: Can I help the hon. Member? We have had a full report of this from our Ambassador. There has been criticism, it is true. There has been severe criticism in a Communist newspaper.

Mr. Pickthorn: In a comic what?

The Attorney-General: In a Communist newspaper. No doubt the hon. Member will adopt it.

Mr. Pickthorn: That is a very old trick of advocacy and not really in these circumstances quite fair. I was trying to be fair. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has opportunities of getting advice about the foreign Press which I and others have not. I made the assertion that according to my advice—and I make bold to say that there is nobody here


who has read all or even most of the Dutch Press—there have been questions of this sort in serious papers since the matter was raised. As the contrary was asserted, I thought it right to say that. In connection with that I may say also that I think it is regrettable that so much impression should have been given that all that mattered was the support of the Minister. I should have thought that even on what the Attorney-General himself said, the Minister was not defensible.
I have no particular reason to attack this Minister. I think he is a great deal better than most of the existing Ministers and I clearly see that a Government that has to carry most of the existing Ministers would rather regret having to get rid of a Minister who had, perhaps, better qualifications than some of them. I quite see all that, but I should not have thought that it was really fair to give the impression that what mattered most was first to get it clear that there was no responsibility, and then perhaps we might do what is admitted on this argument to be the right thing next.

Wing-Commander Millington: rose —

Mr. Pickthorn: This is the last time I give way. I have sat here for three and a half hours, quietly.

Wing-Commander Millington: Would not the hon. Gentleman accept that the gravamen of the Opposition's case—the case as deployed by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe)—has been that the Minister should resign or that his resignation should be called for? We are merely posing the same question in the opposite sense, as it were. Let us clear the question of whether the Minister should or should not resign, let us take that out of court, and then proceed to an examination of the inquiry procedure.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am not for the moment, in a sense, interested in the inquiry procedure. I am interested in the constitutional relationship between this House, the Minister and the public in this matter. I began by indicating as shortly as I could that that was my approach to it. I think that is a perfectly fair approach to it. I quite see that it is not possible to express severe criticism of the Minister responsible without either

explicitly or implicitly thereby calling for his resignation. I quite see that whether you do it explicitly or implicitly it does not seem to me to matter. I think it regrettable that, all that being so, so much should have been made about this being a hunt and all that, and about it being so important to get the Minister safe before one goes on to the rest of the work.
It does not really seem to me that that is a fair argument and for this reason. One of the main charges here is the charge of bureaucracy, of a Ministerial tendency, which is admitted I think in the Newton Report and certainly in the Donoughmore Report, and there in a sense the better the Minister is, the keener on his work and the more devoted to his functions, the greater is the tendency of that Minister to protect his own officials. Everybody knows it, and I think that, whether Lord Pakenham gave way to that temptation or not, that temptation is known by everybody. It may be that it is the main, or almost the main factor, and it seems to me to be a pity that hon. Gentlemen opposite should try to increase the suspicion that Ministers may be exceptionally inclined to stand by their own subordinates by their excessive enthusiasm to stand by their own colleagues. It is necessarily a party political matter in some sense, and it must be the Opposition's duty to criticise what seems to tend to be government by or for officials, and if that endangers ministerial careers why. human life is more important.
I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman who is to reply if he will explain a little more clearly what I did not wholly understand from the learned Attorney-General's explanation, and that was the reference in the bottom left-hand corner of page 2, where it says:
Mr. H. R. Leslie, M.B.E., Advocate, instructed by the Crown Agent for Scotland in the public interest, took the leading part "—
A list of the parties who appeared is also given, and I would like to draw attention to the apparent contrast between that extract and the reference on page 33, where we are told that Mr. H. R. Leslie appeared on behalf of the Minister of Civil Aviation. In exactly what sense does the Treasury Bench intend to found an argument upon drawing a distinction between appearing for the public interest and appearing for the Minister of Civil


Aviation? I am not seeking to score a debating point, but it is a matter that should be made plain.

The Attorney-General: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to deal with that point, because it is most important? I am surprised that he has raised it. There is a very vital distinction, which I am sure his right hon. and learned Friend would recognise. Counsel may be a representative on behalf of a Ministry to defend the interests of that Ministry, and counsel may appear on behalf of the Attorney-General or the Lord Advocate to represent the public interest, which may necessitate attacking that Ministry, criticising its officials and certainly cross-examining them severely in order to elicit the truth. That procedure has been well known in our constitutional arrangements, although the hon. Member may be ignorant of it, for some time.

Mr. Pickthorn: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman should give up this "prep school" stuff about ignorance. I have all sorts of ignorances, and there are very few hon. Members who have not. In this matter I am not so ignorant as some, and what makes it interesting is that in this matter it appears that the words printed over Mr. McDonald's name gave the correct impression and the words printed in Appendix II seem to give a slightly incorrect impression, and that seems to be a point which it was worth making clear. I thought it was quite reasonable that I should do so.
One of the major points in this matter seems to me to be this business of whether the Minister has what the learned Attorney called a legal right to dissent from the findings of fact. I assume that the House is unanimous that he has a legal and constitutional right to dissent from their recommendations. On the findings of facts the learned Attorney may very well be right about that, and I would not pretend that I am more likely to be right at all. But he gave us very little argument, and there is a great weight of authority on the other side. All other distinguished authorities in another place or in this place who have mentioned the matter, and many distinguished authorities outside, have more than tended to take the other line. I follow the distinction drawn by my hon. and learned Friend in front of me. I do not mean

that I could get an injunction against the Minister if he dissented on facts, but that it is not legal and practicable for the findings of fact to be reversed and ignored. Surely, if the difficulty had arisen, there should have been provision for a re-hearing or an appeal by a similar or different court of inquiry, if necessary. I have heard it said that it was not possible under the regulations, but that is no excuse, because it was possible under the statute, and there was no reason in the world why the Minister should not have altered the regulations. If that really is the difficulty, I think that it should have been met in that way.
May I now ask a question about the K.L.M. man inside the control tower? Can we get this exactly right? It has always been an immense difficulty for a shipmaster in charge of a ship, with the whole responsibility for what happens to it, yet, when the pilot is on board, the pilot has his authority, too. It has alway5 been a great difficulty; my own father twice got into trouble and out of it again for bringing his ship in with the pilot locked in a cabin. It required immense courage for shipmasters to do that. I am a little surprised at these regulations as explained. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right, I am surprised that the K.L.M. man has the legal authority to say "I am sure the pilot wants to know what time it is, or whether it is Tuesday, or what the clouds are doing, and you must tell him." I understand that he is there, that he is a sensible man on good terms with the control tower man, and that that is what happens nine times out of 10. The question I want to raise is this: Was the impression, which was certainly given to the House, a correct one that the operators man in the control tower has the legal right to say, "Here is a piece of information that must be given." If that is right, I think we ought to be told so quite plainly.
Is it conceivable—and I am afraid that this is repetition, but I will be quick as I can—that the Minister would have done what he did on this occasion for the pilot if the thing had been vice versa instead of for the ground staff? Is that conceivable? Could it possibly have happened the other way round? It is important that we should know. That really busts the analogy of the hon. Gentleman from one of the Essex divisions concerning the


Royal Air Force. It is quite true that the Royal Air Force does appoint their own inquiry, but they do not appoint with a temptation, what he called a vested interest, but the answer should be if possible, on one side rather than on the other. I say that the Royal Air Force employ ground staff and air staff—

Mr. Lindgren: Is the hon. Gentleman asserting now that the Ministry of Civil Aviation have, in fact, appointed an inquiry with a view to receiving a biased report?

Mr. Pickthorn: No, no; nothing of the sort. I beg the hon. Gentleman to listen more carefully to what I say. It is all over all the reports and the documents that the Minister is, in a sense, bound to be—and the better the Minister, the more he is bound to be—strongly tempted to think and to hope that the blame is not upon the meteorological officers and persons in that sort of position. That is the difficulty of that sort of inquiry, and it is admitted all over the face of both documents, and I could give half a dozen quotations.
I want to know whether it is really believed that this would have been likely to happen if the thing had been the other way round. Did not the civil servants, of whom it is said that they ought to be protected, did they not, in fact, have at least as much chance of appearance and of giving evidence and having their case put as anybody else, and a great deal more chance than the unfortunate pilot, who was dead. Can there be any responsibility without the submission of reasons? This is really the main point of the Debate, and it is the note on which I will finish. The learned Attorney-General now says that his noble Friend the Minister has now said that in future he will give reasons that does seem to justify the whole of the campaign for criticising and questioning about this incident.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman said that in his original statement. The Minister apologised to the House for not having dealt with the matter here, and I conceded that at the beginning of my remarks; I think that it was a very serious error.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry; I may be remembering wrong. It is not germane to

my argument really, but I did not think it had been admitted at the first apology. What had been admitted then was that it would have been better to have declared the disagreement in Parliament. The point I want to be quite clear about is that it is now plainly admitted by the Treasury Bench that not only should the dissent be declared in Parliament, but that it should be justified here because, otherwise, it seems to me that all the talk of responsibility and all the laying of hands on hearts and saying, "I take responsibility," is really quite meaningless. That responsibility merely means, "I shall do as I like," and "We have a majority of two to one," unless the responsibility involves a duty to lay the reasons before Debate and to accept judgment. I thought it important that we should get it quite clear that that is what is intended and admitted now, and I am bound to say that I should have thought, without any personal or political ill-will towards the Minister involved, that the fact that he did not know that from the first is quite as much as has usually in the past involved censure.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Crawley: The senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) began by saying that he was the only man to survive three total crashes. Unfortunately, he is not; I have survived four.

Mr. Pickthorn: I expect the hon. Member was driving.

Mr. Crawley: I cannot boast that I was not driving in any one of them. The hon. Member went on to say that he thought that a re-trial in this case was not a useful method of approach. That, of course, depends entirely on what view one takes of the Report itself and of the whole method of this tribunal. As far as I can understand it, except for the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey), who made a most fair speech, to which I shall refer later, all the hon. Members opposite seemed to think that the method of this inquiry was suitable, and that, on the whole, its findings were sound. I take the view that the form of this inquiry is the most unsuitable that can be devised for a fact-finding investigation and that, in fact, the Report itself is grossly misleading. I wish to adduce evidence to prove that.
Leaving aside the constitutional issue which has already been fully dealt with, we are, in fact, dealing with three things. There are the facts which this report elicits, the conclusions drawn, and the method by which those facts were elicited and by which those conclusions were come to. I submit that certain vital facts were never elicited at all. I further submit that the significance of other facts in the evidence was entirely missed and were never commented on in the report. Due to those two things, I say that the conclusions arrived at are, in fact, grossly misleading, so misleading indeed that I think the Minister's intervention was absolutely essential. I shall suggest how I think it was that a court presided over by a K.C. of distinction and which had as an assessor a pilot of considerable experience could have been so misled.
I believe it is entirely due to the form which this inquiry took, a form quite unsuitable to the circumstances of the case. The relevant facts are divided into three sets. The first and most important of all have to do with the weather and the way in which the weather was reported; the second have to do with the procedure adopted for this weather reporting, and the third with the charts. Every report on the weather has one object only. It is to inform the pilot. Every weather report is conducted to that end. The pilot has the sole responsibility for bringing his aircraft down and taking the decision relevant to that fact. The first question to ask here is, What did the pilot know according to the evidence we have? He knew at least 40 minutes before he was preparing to make his approach that the weather was not only bad but deteriorating. At 10.36 he knew that the ceiling was completely overclouded—ten-tenths cloud at 700 feet—and that there was a little cloud below that at 500 feet, and that visibility was deteriorating. That is in the Report.
What did that mean? It meant that 40 minutes before he reached the aerodrome he knew that the ceiling was already at the limit below which he was not allowed to circle the airport. He must immediately have known that the weather was very bad and adopted an exceedingly cautious attitude because of the special instructions given to him. That was his state of mind 40 minutes before he got to the airport. Then at six minutes

past 11 a further report is broadcast—and I am going to say something about this particular report in a minute—which showed a very marked deterioration in the weather, by much the greatest deterioration that occurred during that whole night. We see that there was still complete overclouding at 700 feet, and, instead of only a little cloud at 500 feet, there was four-tenths as low as 300 feet. That was a really marked deterioration of the weather. The statement that the weather and visibility were deteriorating was made on that broadcast, and, of course, if the pilot received that report one would have thought that his attitude of caution would not only have been redoubled but that he would have decided to go back.
It is possible that he did not receive that broadcast. The Attorney-General suggested that no such possibility is raised in the Report. If he will look at paragraph 101, I think he will find, in brackets, that it is said:
assuming this report was intercepted.
It is just possible that it was not intercepted. What happens when an aircraft is approaching an aerodrome at night in bad weather is that all the five members of the crew who have earphones put them on and tune in to the frequency which is in contact with the control tower. This broadcast went out over another frequency, and if, in fact, it was not received—and this was not brought out in the Report—whose responsibility was it? There is a vital broadcast, part of an internationally agreed system, with which are synchronised all the telephoned communications about weather. If that broadcast was not received by the pilot, who was responsible? Only the drill of that airline can be responsible for the failure to receive the half-hour broadcasts on this internationally agreed system.
It is suggested in the Report that the broadcast might not have been received, but there is no suggestion that if it was not the fault lay with the airline, where, of course, it must lie. Even if that report was not received, what was the next report on the weather? Two minutes later this pilot received all the relevant facts given two minutes before on the radio telephone. He was told that clouds were at ten-tenths at 700 feet; he was told in the last half hour that the lower clouds were not now at 500 feet, but at


300 feet, and that the density had gone from one-tenth to four-tenths. Here to my mind, is where the gravest omission in this Report occurs.
It is suggested that although the pilot was given these facts, just because the purely confirmatory word "deteriorating" was not transmitted to him, he might conceivably not have understood their relevance, and might have taken some decision which he would not have taken had that word been uttered over the telephone. What has apparently entirely escaped the notice of those who read this Report is that the pilot has shown that he did understand that the weather had deteriorated and that he took action on that information. What in fact happened was that at three minutes past 11 he announced his decision to land visually on runway 26. He could only have done that knowing that there was very little low cloud below 700 feet which at that time was true. Then at eight minutes past 11 he is told that the cloud has gone down to 300 feet and is now four-tenths.
I have asked pilots of great experience what they would do if they got information that clouds at 300 feet were four-tenths—would they under any circumstances contemplate a visual landing? They have unanimously said, "Not under any circumstances, unless I had two engines out of order." Obviously Captain Parmentier took exactly the same view because, after receiving that report, he changed his mind and at 16 minutes past 11 he said, "I will not land on runway 26 visually"—obviously because he realised that he could not do a visual circuit with clouds at four-tenths—"I will land on runway 32."
Nowhere in this Report is it mentioned that he changed his mind, not once in the air on his downward approach, but twice, and that he changed his mind after this information had been given to him over the radio telephone. It is therefore perfectly obvious that the omission of the word "deteriorating" from that report made not the smallest difference to Captain Parmentier's reactions, because he took the action which an experienced pilot would have to take on receiving that information. He thereby showed that the information he received over the telephone was absolutely adequate, that he understood that the weather had

deteriorated and that it was not safe for him to do a visual circuit with clouds at four-tenths at 300 feet.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: This is a most interesting argument but is not the evidence of the radio-telephone conversations, as shown on page 21, that the pilot changed his mind because he received the following message from the G.C.A. director at Prestwick:
I would advise you the wind is S.W. 12 to 15 m.p.h. You may land on runway 32 and if you find wind too strong you may land on runway 26.
In response, at that point the pilot said:
Roger; we will attempt to land on 32.

Mr. Crawley: He, in fact, changed his mind but it was not the direction of the wind which made him change his mind. What else could have made him change his mind? He had announced his intention of landing visually on runway 26. The information which the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) has just quoted could have had no effect on that. Why should it have had an effect? Certainly the G.C.A. director said to him, "You may land on runway 32," but he had known right from the beginning that he could have landed there, for the director told him that his apparatus was set up on runway 32 which, of course, meant that he could land there. Yet, even with that knowledge, he said, "I will land on runway 26." Then, for some reason which is certainly not apparent from the information which the hon. Member for Keighley quoted, because the wind had no effect on the position whatever, he changed his mind; and it is obvious that the only reason such a pilot would change his mind was that he knew there were four-tenths cloud. Every other pilot would agree that at night that is a condition in which nobody would do a visual circuit unless he was forced to do so by some engine failure or something of that kind.
This therefore, is the first point I want to drive home. This contention in the Report, which also ran through the whole of the Opposition's case, that the non-transmission of this word, "deteriorating" could have had a decisive effect upon Captain Parmentier's action, is wholly ruled out by the evidence which is in the Report, but to which the chairman of this tribunal never saw fit to call attention. Either he did not understand its significance or he ignored it. I consider that


omission alone so gravely prejudices this Report, since it completely invalidates one of the main suggested causes of the accident, that the Minister's action in intervening was not merely essential but was a public service.
There are, in fact, other matters which I think are equally grave. The second set of circumstances has to do with the way in which these weather reports were reported. I want to refer hon. Members to paragraph 102 of the Report. I maintain that in paragraph 102 of this Report, as it stands, and in paragraph 105 in the next column, there are at least two complete misstatement of fact. If hon. Members look half-way down paragraph 102 they will see that it reads:
He suggested that there must have been some arrangement made between Approach Control and the Meteorological Officer (Prestwick) before he went to Prestwick whereby such information was not given in plain language. There was no evidence of any such arrangement ever having been made.
But the fact is that we now discover that there is such evidence, that there are at least three documents which show that there has been such an arrangement. The question which I want to ask of the House, and indeed of the man who conducted the inquiry, is: why did he, whose responsibility it was to probe to the bottom of these affairs, whose duty it was to elicit the facts, not elicit the fact that there were at least three documents which establish that such an arrangement had been made, even before 26th October, and had been in operation for several years?
And why did not he probe to the bottom of the whole international agreement which is laid down in a document the number of which I have forgotten for the moment—it is a K.L. document which hon. Members can get; number 2106 issued in 1946—which confirmed the arrangement which had been reached? Yet the Report says there was no evidence of it at this aerodrome. Why did he not, further, get hold of the papers of the regional officer, who endorsed the P.I.C.A.O., the international agreement for the air, and, further, a letter from the divisional controller to the officers, which I obtained simply by making inquiries and which, in fact, showed that these arrangements had been put into force?
All this evidence is now available; all this evidence was available at the time of

the inquiry. Hon. Members may say: why did not the Government representatives produce it? I think some criticism may lie there. But it is not the people who are giving evidence for one party or another who have the whole view of any inquiry. It is not those people who are always certain to put the same emphasis on any one set of facts or another, or who know at any particular time the relevance of the documents which they have behind them. There may be criticism lying on some of the people who represented the Minister in this case in that all these facts were not produced, but surely, if that is so, far greater criticism lies at the door of the man who was conducting the factfinding inquiry—an inquiry the whole object of which was to probe to the bottom of these things.
What did he do? He took the word, that there was no evidence, of two men—yet under no circumstances could it have been their business to find out the origin of all these instructions; two men who were following a normal procedure laid down, as they knew, by higher authority but on whose part it would have been impertinence to inquire what was the origin of that authority. He heard this evidence that there had been such an arrangement and that they were following such procedure, but because they themselves, men operational on the ground, could not tell him of the authority for that procedure, he assumed that no such authority existed. He said there was no evidence that such an arrangement had been made.
Never in my life have I read such a fantastic assertion from a qualified lawyer carrying out a fact-finding inquiry. Surely elementary inquisitiveness would have suggested to him that he should probe a little further behind the arrangement followed at international aerodromes for three years, which arrangement was being followed at every other airport at that time. In my view it amounts to a dereliction of duty in this case.

Mr. H. Strauss: The hon. Member has quoted documents which he says on the face of them tend to show that the Report was wrong, but he will recollect, if he was in the House at the time, that in answer to one of my right hon. Friends and in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C.


Davies) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation said that the Minister did not rely on anything that was not set out in the Report and in the evidence. Does not the hon. Member think it a little unfair to quote these outside documents when that statement has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary?

Mr. Crawley: I am quoting from no document which was not publicly known at the time of this inquiry, and the Minister was relying on no document which was not public property at the time of the inquiry, and the question of who should bring the relevance of these documents to the notice of the man who was chairman of the court is not a point I intend to make. What I am saying is that, in fact, this man's duty was to elicit these facts, and as these facts were known to every aerodrome in this country and known internationally to every airline, it is a public scandal that this man did not probe this inquiry to a sufficient depth to find them out. I think that that is absolutely incontrovertible.
There is a third set of facts about which I think there were equally grave omissions and equally grave misrepresentations, and those facts have to do with the charts. I shall make only one point about the charts and then I shall sit down. There are some very grave omissions in relation to the charts. An argument has been adduced from those charts to show that there might have been, by some means, responsibility lying at the door of those who produced them, for the accident, in that they might have misled the pilot. What was not brought out at the trial—but was contained in page 139 of the evidence—was that even though on the chart this false spot height was printed, two neighbouring heights only a few yards away, of 585 feet in the one case and the other a slightly less height, were both printed. It is, therefore, quite incontestable that no pilot in any circumstances, even on that false spot height, would have gone anywhere near that piece of ground at all. That fact was elucidated in evidence from two very prominent members of K.L.M., and in spite of that, it was adduced as a possible cause of the accident. It seems to me a very strange process of reasoning.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that all Members of this House are very sorry that so few Members from the back benches on either side have been able to take part in this Debate. However, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Crawley) certainly crowded a number of wild accusations into a short space of time. I shall not deal with them all now [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—because even more serious charges were made earlier in the Debate to which I should like to give some considered answer. However, in reference to the three documents which the hon. Gentleman spoke of and which he said the president of the court should have had brought to his attention, we understood that there was an advocate representing—as we thought—the Minister of Civil Aviation and, as we were told today, appearing in the public interest. If, in fact, Mr. Leslie was briefed to look after the public interest this then, surely, is exactly the field in which his advocacy might have been employed.

Mr. Crawley: Does the hon. Gentleman then suggest that that absolves the chairman of the court for not probing the facts further?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, I would go so far as to say it does. I would go even further. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) reminds me, one would always assume that the Crown would produce its own evidence, and certainly if the report was published without that information which is now available, that is a matter which is the fault of those who should have produced it. This only shows the danger of re-trying the case across the Floor of the House of Commons. There was the tribunal. Its findings have been overruled. That is the gravamen of our charge. [Interruption] If hon. Gentlemen will interrupt me the only effect will be that there will be less time left for the Parliamentary Secretary to answer, because agreements have been arrived at in the usual way between the two parties.

Dr. Morgan: Have there been?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Like the statements in the Report of the court of inquiry, it


is a statement of fact and it should not be arguable.
The Attorney-General told us that it might be right to alter the procedure at future investigations, but he made this extraordinary subsequent statement, that he was not prepared to do that while there was still this agitation about the Prestwick disaster. He told us it may be necessary to alter the procedure. He also said that in his considered view—and he was representing the public interest—he is not prepared apparently at this moment to advocate those changes in procedure, which the vast majority of informed people believe to be desirable.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry, but I said almost the opposite. I said that we had been considering alterations in the procedure, that we have had a discussion quite recently, and since the matter had arisen, with the Lord Chancellor, to discuss concrete proposals, but that I thought that we had got to get the Prestwick case out of the way so as to make it quite clear that those alterations in procedure were not discussed by us as a peg on which to hang criticism of the Minister of Civil Aviation.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Except that that is put in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own particular brand of language, the point is precisely the same. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also introduced a very subtle new phrase into his speech. Hitherto we have talked about tribunals of this kind as being "judicial inquiries." He referred more than once to an "administrative inquiry," and everything he said throughout his speech was calculated to reduce the value of inquiries of this kind and to denigrate such inquiries.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman jeered also at the Opposition for not having had a Debate earlier on the Newton Report. If it had not been for the Opposition the Newton Report would never have been published. We did, in fact, have two Adjournment Debates, one before the Newton Committee was set up, and one after it had reported, but before, in fact, its report had been published. But if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will cast his mind back to the actual weeks in which Mr. Newton's Committee's Report was published, he will realise that it was

within a few days of the Prestwick disaster. The accident happened in October, 1948, and Mr. McDonald's inquiry was instituted in November, 1948: and in the same month the Newton Committee reported. It would have been a singularly inappropriate thing, while that inquiry was taking place, to have had a full dress Debate on our accidents procedure.
We charge, too, against the Government that they tried not to publish the Report, and that now that it has been published they are refusing to carry out its recommendations.
Reports may contain facts or recommendations for the Minister to carry out. The Attorney-General asked, for example, if the Report said that the lighting at Prestwick was very faulty, and yet the Minister thought that certain lighting might be absolutely essential.

The Attorney-General: I said hypothetically, light was the cause of the accident.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This would be the hypothetical recommendation. Certainly, of course. I was speaking in the memory of hon. Members of the House, and I thought it was clearly understood that, if the lighting had been the main cause, or a contributory cause, of the disaster, the question was. if the Minister did not think this was so, would he have an obligation to alter the whole lighting system? Of course not. That would have been a recommendation for Ministerial action, and in that field the Minister, of course, must be free to do what he thinks is desirable. But what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now saying is that, when there has been an impartial inquiry into the facts, the Minister, who has had his chance to put his views before the inquiry, shall be allowed to say that the interpretation of fact is wrong.
Now the right hon. and learned Gentleman also told us—I am sorry to be so quick in my speech, but I am trying to give a chance to the Parliamentary Secretary—that there should be the same system of messages, whether WT or Rt. throughout the whole civilised world. Now, of course, we agree on certain essential signals with all other countries and that they must in every case be observed. But we do not agree that in a sudden emergency, because of that inter-


national agreement, at any British or any other airport they are precluded from giving further information if the weather suddenly deteriorates.

Mr. Beswick: rose —

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot give way any more. This would make us slaves to routine to an extent that would be perfectly ridiculous. I shall come a little later to a further argument in that field, but I shall try to deal in a few words with an argument used by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The Attorney-General also dealt with the apology made by the Minister of Civil Aviation in another place. Indeed, had the Minister made his statement in another place for the first time and on the first occasion, it is quite true that some—but by no means all—of our main criticisms would not have arisen.
I am glad that only one or two hon. Members—particularly the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Wing-Commander Millington) tried to paint this Debate as a heresy hunt. The Minister of Civil Aviation has many friends on both sides of this House and in another place, and no personal venom against him can possibly be suggested. It is not likely, I think, that we would attempt to carry out a campaign for his removal from the Government for trifling or personal reasons while so many less respectable colleagues are allowed to stay in the Government undisturbed. The only reason for suggesting any such thing would be in the interests of the Minister himself. But this suggestion for our action has not, I think, been made. Nor—and I hope I need hardly add this—as the interests of a foreign Power are involved and 40 important lives have been lost, are we likely to initiate discussions for frivolous reasons.
This is to many of us a matter of immense constitutional importance, and it cannot be disposed of by the Minister recognising that he made an error in procedure. The Minister has chosen, without any further evidence whatever, to upset the findings of the tribunal. It has never been more necessary than it is today that the judiciary, and the quasi-judiciary, should be protected against the encroachments of the Executive. I must say, I

have been very disturbed by the arguments that have been used in both Houses to support the Minister's action, and in particular by those people in and out of Parliament who have tried to paint this argument as if it were a case of Lord Pakenham against Mr. McDonald. The Minister himself in another place was not guiltless of that charge, in using such phrases as "Mr. McDonald's case," "The case pleaded by Mr. McDonald," and "Why should Mr. McDonald not have the services of a great advocate?"
All these attempts to turn the issue as if it were a personal one between two important people are wholly undesirable, and the suggestion that the battle is between a Minister, whose generosity of spirit we all understand and appreciate, who is trying to protect his subordinates, and the president of a court who is prepared to allow people to have "a shadow-over them for the rest of their lives" is grossly unfair, particularly when the president of the court only arrives, no doubt, with the greatest reluctance at his findings, moved solely by his own sense of duty. Mr. McDonald, I imagine, did no more than follow the advice given him by counsel—the counsel that we have been talking about today, Mr. Leslie—to follow wheresoever the arguments may lead. That is what he did, and if fresh arguments or a new appreciation of old arguments are brought up in this House, they should have been brought up at that tribunal.
Now it was said freely in another place that under our generally accepted views of Ministerial responsibility the Minister should vacate his office, and I must say, on a reading of British history, that there is a great deal of sense in that argument. He is interpreting his conception of Ministerial responsibility as the obligation to protect, on every occasion, his own servants. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] What Ministerial responsibility means is that if one's own servants are censured, then the Minister is responsible. Sir Austen Chamberlain said in 1917:
My responsibility is sole and undivided in some matters where the commission have administered rebukes,
on his Department. Because of that the right hon. Gentleman left.
The second charge that we should make in that field is that, once having


made the original error, the Minister's handling of this case has not been very felicitous. Now of those peers who came to his aid in another place there is only one to whose speech I should like to make brief reference, and that is the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crook. I am sure that he and everyone else would be glad to have his most misleading statement put right. This inquiry deals with the lamentable loss of a K.L.M. airliner. Lord Crook, in dealing with navigational aids—actually maps—said in another place that K.L.M. also owned the airliner that crashed at Oslo with a large party of Jewish children on board. In fact that airliner did not belong to K.L.M., and I very much hope the noble Lord will find it possible to correct that impression at an early date, in regard to the Dutch Government, the Dutch people and this most distinguished Dutch airline.
Various arguments of all kinds have been advanced as to the reaction of the people of Holland. I have taken a good deal of trouble to find out what their reactions have been, and my impression is that, after their first surprise that a Minister could over-rule a quasi-judicial inquiry, they came to the view that this was a matter for Great Britain to settle, and the comment in the Dutch Press has, with trifling exceptions, been generous and understanding to a country in difficulty. This is what we would expect from the Dutch people. But that does not exonerate us from our obligation to see that charges hinted at, but never proved in the tribunal, must not be made against distinguished citizens of that country.
Now, I will not go into great detail about the actual cause of this disaster. I have already said that I think it lamentable that this should be discussed—

The Attorney-General: Would the hon. Gentleman say what he means by that last statement? As far as I know—and I hope he will correct me if I am wrong—no kind of charge has been made against distinguished citizens of that country. The tribunal had to investigate what was the cause of this accident, and it may have been thought by some that possibly the pilot was negligent. That cannot be excluded. But I take this opportunity of paying the highest tribute to that most distinguished public citizen,

Dr. Plesman, who is the head of K.L.M. I know from many contacts with him what a great public figure he is, and I absolutely repudiate the suggestion that either indirectly or directly any charges had been made against anybody.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The learned Attorney-General must have been so busy talking with his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that he did not hear his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr." Crawley) suggest as one possible reason a failure of the drill among the five Dutch members of the crew who should have picked up, or could have picked up, a particular message.

The Attorney-General: rose —

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think it desirable to remind the Attorney-General, and then I will certainly give way, that the gentleman whom the Minister appointed to be the president of the court of inquiry himself said that the effect of the Minister's statement issued simultaneously with the report of the inquiry, was to put the blame upon the dead Dutch pilot.

The Attorney-General: I thought the hon. Gentleman said that charges had been made indirectly at the tribunal against distinguished Dutch citizens. I could not understand what he was referring to. Surely he is not suggesting that at a public inquiry of this kind one is precluded from suggesting that there may have been fault on the part of the pilot, or possibly fault in the drill on the part of the crew, because they happened to be citizens of a foreign country? If so, these inquiries would become a complete farce. I am bound to say that that is not the view that Dr. Plesman has taken in his public statement, when he held a Press conference about this inquiry. No kind of charges were made, but there was a duty to investigate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give way, and I wanted to repudiate the suggestion that charges were made. There was a duty to investigate the cause. That may have resulted in it being thought possible that somebody made a mistake, but that does not involve a charge against a distinguished citizen of a foreign country.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Although I mentioned the name of the hon. Member for Buckingham, the Attorney-General is


entitled to answer. Before he quite finishes with that point, I would say that, of course the most brutal truths must be told at inquiries, however much they may wound foreign or British citizens. Our charge is that once the tribunal had reported on a question of fact the Government's mouth should have been closed. That is the whole issue which we feel is in dispute. I only quoted in aid the very significant remark made by the hon. Gentleman that it may have been failure of drill on the part of the crew. That shows the undesirability away from a court of law or without the right to cross-examine witness or to have all the relevant witnesses, of retrying again this most unhappy issue.

Mr. Crawley: I did not say that it was a failure on the part of the crew. I said that it might have been faulty drill, and, therefore, a responsibility of the air line. That is a very different thing.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will leave the House to judge on that particular issue. I said that I did not think it profitable to retry this case. There was an obvious obligation on another place to see whether the Minister had any possible justification for the line that he took. Had there been no evidence at all or so little evidence in the report as to justify the findings against it, it was essential to illicit that fact in another place. The Debate that took place on the first occasion with the Minister present on the actual incidents up to the time of the disaster was an entirely proper one. I do not think that anybody reading that Debate or still less those who heard it would deny that one result in most of our minds was that there was certainly a volume of evidence on which the President was entitled to make up his mind in the way that he did. He chose to make it up in that way, and we think that he was right. Having made up his mind in that way, we do not think the Government should have challenged him.
I am reluctant to be drawn into details, but there is one most important fact which must, I think, be considered. The Attorney-General has relied on the same arguments that were used in another place by his noble Friend, suggesting in fact—I do not want to be interrupted because I think the general impression is

true—that the President of the Court did not suggest that he was attributing any individual failure to anyone after 11.8. A careful reading of the report and the evidence—and the hon. Gentleman is not the only one to do both—shows that the omission of the words "deteriorating" and "deterioration" referred to in paragraph 173 of the report relates to all verbal radio messages sent to the aircraft from 10.36 until the time of the collision at 11.32. There are many paragraphs that would justify this view. On another occasion, if chance allows, I will quote them.
There is the reference in the noble Lord's speech to "at or just after 2300 hours" in paragraph 102, and the noble Lord left out the first part of the sentence. This reference applies not to the time when the A.T.C.O. failed to inform the aircraft, but to the time when form 2309 reached A.T.C.O. from the meteorological office. It is our view that from that time up to the time of the disaster there was a continuing obligation on ground staff to keep the pilot fully informed en clair of changes in the weather. That was the view to which Mr. McDonald came, and he did so after being in a position to cross-examine in detail and hear the cross-examination by advocates of the ground staff at Prestwick.
It is with the future that we are concerned. We are concerned about what lessons we are to learn from the handling of this inquiry. We have had very little information as to what the Government are going to do. We know that the Newton Report criticises the Minister being the judge in his own case. We know that the Minister is bound to be more and more involved as long as nationalisation goes on as an interested party in accidents to aircraft in the United Kingdom. He also issues the regulations in regard to air safety, and he has the individual obligation of the provision of aerodromes and ground organisations. We agree with the Newton Report that it is wholly undesirable that a Minister so involved as he is bound to be should be entitled to sit in judgment on himself, and we broadly support the general approach of the Newton inquiry.
It is of interest to realise that in Holland they have very similar machinery. There they have a Tribunal, the officers


of which are appointed by the Crown, and which acts wholly independently of the Government of the day. The Minister, the Attorney-General told us, quoted from the noble Lord's own words in the preface to the Newton Report that he could not accept the report because the Minister here has a statutory and international responsibility for air safety in general, of which the proper investigations of air accidents is an important part, and he cannot divest himself of this responsibility.
The same is precisely true in Holland. There the Air Ministry has a proper international and statutory responsibility for air safety. All that we are asking the Minister to do is not to divest himself of his proper responsibility but of his improper responsibility of being the judge in his own case. It has always been objectionable. Since nationalisation and since the Donoughmore report it is far more objectionable, and, indeed, from the international point of view, very embarrassing.
We have an opportunity to reform our whole procedure. We can take inspiration from the way it is done in Holland. Our own air pilots are nearly unanimous on the need for revision of procedure. It may be that from this tragic disaster will come some lessons which will in the future help civil aviation and the honour of Britain.

7.39 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): I suppose that as the last speaker in this Debate I am in the worst position of all, because I have so much to say and so little time in which to say it. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd)—if I may deal with his point first—has completely destroyed the case which he tried to establish. He suggested that what happened at 11.8 was a vital matter. Lord Simon suggested that 11.30 was the vital time.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I said that the important time was 10.36 when the last verbal messages recording "deterioration" were received R.T. From that moment, it was the obligation of the ground staff, right up to the time of the disaster, to give R.T. variations in the weather. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman and the Minister in another place tried to pretend

that 11.8 was the important moment, but our view was that for an hour before the disaster there was a continuing obligation to keep the pilot informed of deterioration in the weather.

Mr. Lindgren: That shows the absolutely farcical manner in which this matter is being discussed. It would seem that the hon. Gentleman has not read a single word of the report or a single word of the evidence, because for a large portion of the time he is talking about, the aircraft was in fact in contact with the ground and with G.C.A. It is not a question of the word "deteriorating." So far as the aircraft was concerned, at 11.6 it had the word "deteriorating." At 11.8 it had what the pilot of the aircraft asked for himself—a weather report given in the form used at every aerodrome throughout this and other countries which recognise international standards and recommendations.,
It is the recognised procedure, if a pilot requires any further information, for him to interrupt at any time and to ask for it, and it must be given. In addition, there was a representative of K.L.M. in the control tower, a person who, according to the procedure, has a right to intervene at any time and ask that any special information should be passed to the pilot. He was there to see that the procedure was carried out in accordance with the requirements.
I hardly know where to start in replying to the Debate, but I should like to express my appreciation of its general tone and terms, particularly in regard to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey). If only all the speeches could have been of that type, a great deal more could be said for the Debate. I do not want to inflame any feelings. I pay my tribute to Members opposite who are interested in civil aviation. They have done everything possible during my period at the Ministry, and also, I think, during my predecessor's period of office, to bring our air safety to a position that is generally accepted as the best in the world. This has been done on a nonparty basis, and I now ask the Opposition whether they cannot withdraw the Motion so that we can carry on what we have been doing ever since the findings of the Newton Committee, whose find-


ings we accepted in part and rejected in part. Discussions have been going on between the Treasury Solicitor, my noble Friend and all those concerned to see how we can improve this machinery. The machinery is not perfect. It is obvious it cannot be perfect, as this is a new industry. We are not dealing with the machinery on the basis of railway and marine inquiries. I ask, therefore, that we should deal with the position in another way.
Reference was made by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), who made a crack at the Government, to the fact that he had been in three smashes. I do not know whether he expects us to express our regret or pleasure. I am not sure whether he was present when the position of the Crown Agent was discussed.

Mr. Pickthorn: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Lindgren: Then the hon. Member knows the position in regard to that. The counsel himself said; it is perhaps as well to have it on record:
As you have read, the purpose of the inquiry is to ascertain the cause and circumstances of the accident. My duty, as I conceive it, is not concerned whatever with questions in law of civil or other liability, but simply to endeavour to adduce before you fully, by oral evidence and by documents, the whole of the facts so that you may be in a position to follow wheresoever the arguments lead.
That is an entirely different situation from that alleged, that the Crown Agent was there purely in defence of members of the staff of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. It was Mr. H. S. Wilson, who, according to page 33 of the Report, was the advocate on behalf of the members of the staff of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Crawley), in a thoughtful speech, showed one of the difficulties in this matter.

Mr. Pickthorn: Since the Parliamentary Secretary has referred to me on this question of Mr. Wilson and Mr. Leslie, is he suggesting that Mr. Wilson could not have adopted the same words as Mr. Leslie?

Mr. Lindgren: Of course he could not.

Mr. Pickthorn: Does the Attorney-General agree with that?

Mr. Lindgren: Mr. Leslie, instructed by the Crown Agent, was there to represent the public interest, and Mr. Wilson was there to represent the interests of certain members of the staff who felt they might come under criticism.

Mr. Pickthorn: Could he have used the same words?

Mr. Lindgren: I do not know. 1 am not a lawyer, and after hearing the way some of them talk, I am glad I am not. The tragic thing is that after the pilot made his decision at 11.16 to go on to runway 32, no one really knows exactly what happened.
What we need is a machinery for these accident inquiries in which everyone has confidence, pilots, the travelling public and all those associated with civil air-line operations. We need a machinery that will be accepted by every one of those interests. I ask the House to accept it from me, on behalf of my noble Friend and on behalf of the Government, that we are as urgently concerned as any one with the type of machinery established. We have had long discussions on the matter, and we have not moved quicker because we have had to consider the effect of the machinery once it has been established. I would urge acceptance of the proposition made earlier, that this Motion should not be pressed.
Before I conclude, I must make one reference to Mr. McDonald. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) asked me a supplementary question yesterday, in reply to which I said that the president of the court had received 20 guineas per day while the court was sitting and 20 guineas for his report. Mr. McDonald, through the usual channels, has called my attention to the fact that he has not received the fee. That was the agreed fee, but it has not been paid, and if I have caused Mr. McDonald any inconvenience by saying that he has received it, I apologise.
There are many other points with which I should like to deal, but time is short. I ask Members not to press this Motion to a Division, to show that, for everyone associated with civil aviation, there is no question of party in regard to safety, and to join with us to see that


we establish the machinery we deserve. I affirm again that we will accept any suggestions and work in co-operation With any interested parties to establish that.
Question put,

"That, in view of the treatment of the Report made by the independent tribunal appointed to investigate the accident at Prestwick Airport on 20th October, 1948, this House

considers that provision should be made for a Report on the facts and causes of such accidents to be made by a statutory court, whose conclusions should be accepted as final save so far as provision is made for appeal or rehearing, in order that confidence here and abroad in the conclusions arrived at after hearing evidence may be more firmly established."

The House divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 246.

Division No. 300.]
AYES
[7.50 pan.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Pickthorn, K.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Poole, O. B. S (Oswestry)


Barlow, Sir J.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Price-White, D.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ropner, Col. L.


Birch, Nigel
Hollis, M. C.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hope, Lord J.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Boothby, R.
Howard, Hon. A.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Bower, N.
Hurd, A.
Scott, Lord W.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Jennings, R.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Butcher, H. W.
Legga-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Carson, E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Studholme, H. G.


Crosthwarte-Eyre, Col. O. E.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Sutcliffe, H.


Davidson, Viscountess
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


De la Bé re, R.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Donner, P. W.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Drayson, G. B.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Drewe, C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Touche, G. C.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maude, J. C.
Turton, R. H.


Eccles, D. M.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Walker-Smith, D.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Mellor, Sir J.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Molson, A. H. E.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Gage, C.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
York, C.


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Nicholson, G.
Young, Sir A. S. L (Partick)


Glyn, Sir R.
Nield, B. (Chester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gridley, Sir A.
Nutting, Anthony
Major Conant and


Grimston, R. V.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Colonel Wheatley.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Brown, George (Belper)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Deer, G.


Alpass, J. H.
Burden, T. W.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Delargy, H. J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Callaghan, James
Diamond, J.


Ayles, W. H.
Chafer, D.
Dobbie, W.


Bacon, Miss A.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Dodds, N. N.


Barstow, P. G.
Cluse, W. S.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Bartlett, V.
Cobb, F. A.
Dumpleton, C. W.


Barton, C.
Collins, V. J.
Dye, S.


Battley, J. R.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Cooper, G.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)


Berry, H.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Beswick, F
Cove, W G.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Crawley, A.
Ewart, R.


Bing, G. H. C.
Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Farthing, W. J.


Binns, J.
Cullen, Mrs.
Fernyhough, E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Daggar, G.
Field, Capt. W. J.


Blyton, W. R.
Daines, P.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Follick, M.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Forman, J. C.


Bramall, E. A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Freeman, J. (Watford)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Ganley, Mrs C. S.




Gibson, C. W.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Sargood, R,


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Manning, C (Camberwell, N.)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Segal, Dr. S.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Greenwood, A W. J. (Heywood)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Sharp, Granville


Grey, C. F.
Mellish, R. J.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Lianelly)
Messer, F.
Shurmer, P.


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.
Simmons, C. J.


Gunter, R J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Skeffington, A. M.


Guy, W. H.
Monslow, W.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Skinnard, F. W.


Hale, Leslie
Morley, R.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Hardman, D. R.
Moyle, A.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Hardy, E. A.
Murray, J. D.
Snow, J. W.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Nally, W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Haworth, J.
Naylor, T. E.
Sparks, J. A.


Herbison, Miss M.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hobson, C. R.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G R (Lambeth)


Holman, P.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Stubbs, A. E.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Sylvester, G. O.


Houghton, Douglas
O'Brien, T.
Symonds, A. L.


Hoy, J.
Oldfield, W. H.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Orbach, M.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paget, R. T.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, 'Will T. (Dewsbury)
Tiffany, S.


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Irving, W. J (Tottenham, N.)
Pannell, T. C.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pargiter, G A
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Janner, B.
Parkin, B. T.
Viant, S. P.


day, D. P. T.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Walker, G. H.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Pearson, A.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Peart, T. F.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Jones, P. Aslerley (Hitchin)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Kenyon, C.
Popplewell, E.
West, D. G.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


King, E. M.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Kinley, J.
Proctor, W. T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Kirby, B. V.
Pryde, D. J.
Wigg, George


Leonard, W.
Pursey, Comdr H.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Randall, H. E.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Ranger, J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Lindgren, G. S.
Rankin, J.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Wills, Mrs E. A.


Longden, F.
Reeves, J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


McAdam, W.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


McEntee, V. La T.
Richards, R.
Woods, G. S.


McGhee, H. G.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Wyatt, W.


McGovern, J.
Robens, A.
Yates, V. F.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


McKinlay, A. S.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Rogers, G. H. R.



Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Royle, C.
Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Hannan.


Question put, and agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES (ORGANISATION)

8.2 p.m.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: I beg to move,
That this House accepts the recommendations contained in the Eleventh Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, expresses its concern at the large losses shown to have been incurred by some county agricultural executive committees on their trading services, and regrets the delay in taking steps to reorganise the Ministry of Agriculture and the county agricultural executive committees so as to promote efficiency and to achieve economy in both public expenditure and manpower.
The House will remember that the report we are discussing this evening was published a few weeks' after we separated for the Summer Recess, and this is the first occasion that this House has had an opportunity of discussing it. A very remarkable coincidence has followed from the decision to have this discussion, because today a document has been issued which is the Departmental reply to this Eleventh Report of the Select Committee on Estimates in regard to agricultural services. We can assume that if we had not asked for this Debate, we very likely would not have this document before us at the present time.
This report comes from one of the House's own Select Committees and consists of Members from all parts of the House. It was eight years since the Estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture had been considered by a Select Committee of this House. During those eight years much has happened, and hon. Members will also agree, in whatever quarter they may sit, that this Eleventh Report has caused great anxiety to many Members in various parts of the House. I do not propose to deal with all the subjects dealt with in the report, but only with certain aspects in the hope that the Minister of Agriculture may be in a position to amplify and enlarge upon what he has issued today in this document and that he will tell the House exactly what he proposes to do, and in some cases why he has not done something about it before.
Because I believe it is the most serious passage in the report, I want first to refer to the question of the accountancy of the county agricultural executive committees. From the paragraphs dealing with this subject, it would appear that the method

adopted up to now has not been wholly satisfactory, and I am convinced—and I know that my view is shared by many other hon. Members—that we shall never get a true picture of what is going on in our county committees unless we can get these accounts published county by county. I cannot find anything in the document published today to show that the Minister agrees with the recommendations of the Select Committee.
It is some years since this question was first raised. As far back as 1946, my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bé re) asked for a Select Committee of the House of Commons to examine the war agricultural executive committees' activities and at that time the Minister replied that he was asking them to prepare the accounts up to 1st April, 1946. With that in our minds let us see what the Select Committee say in their report.
In referring to the accountancy of the county committees, they state that the presentation is "unco-ordinated and confused." Members who were charged by this House to consider these problems were given a summary of the income and expenditure accounts of the separate counties for each of the trading services in the financial year 1946–47 and 1947–48. The members of the Committee have agreed to treat these particular documents as confidential for the reasons set out in the report, which, as far as I can make out—and I was not a member of the Select Committee, so that I have not had an opportunity of seeing these trading accounts—were mainly because of the bad way in which the accounts had been kept and the many and varied ways in which they had been made up, so that it was impossible to compare like with like. That in itself seems to be the complete answer to the point which we put to the Government and particularly to the Minister of Agriculture—that to get this matter straight and to know where we are, it is essential that we should have the accounts before us county by county.
More than that, surely it is not a very good procedure to have a few hon. Members, however much all of us may respect them, having the privilege of seeing these trading accounts, while the rest of the hon. Members are unable to study them and do not know what the position is. They are denied this information which has been given to members of the


Select Committee. However much we may respect their views—and they have expressed them vigorously in this report—in the national interests and for the future well-being of the work of our county committees it would be very much better if the whole House were able to inspect these accounts.
It is accepted by everybody at the present time that in any modern business cost accounting is essential. It would appear to be abundantly clear from the paragraphs dealing with the county committees' accounts that under the present system there cannot be a proper check upon expenditure. Therefore, there cannot be any proper cost accounting. It is essential in these matters that there should be most careful cost accounting. If such accountancy is necessary for a private firm, how much more necessary is it in a Government Department which is responsible to the public for the expenditure of public money?
Further, and I think hon. Members will agree that this is also an extremely important point, there has been a large rise in expenditure in recent years. From paragraph 3 of the report, I estimate that the rise in expenditure from 1939 until the year 1948–49 for agriculture and general services, and food production services, has been in the neighbourhood of £47½ million. Is this increased expenditure by our county committees justified? How are we to tell, or how is the Minister of Agriculture to know, whether it is justified or not, if there is no proper method of accountancy to judge between like and like among the different counties? To give one example—I am not in a position to know which county is referred to, because I have not seen the accounts—we are told in paragraph 9 of the report that one county lost as much as £350,000 during 1947–48. That is a very large sum of money. The report goes on to express the view that the methods of accountancy vary so much in different parts of the country that we cannot compare them. That is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Mr. John Lewis: Would the hon. and gallant Member agree that geographical factors also vary?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, certainly. I accept that point, but we are not in a

position to know. If hon. Members had an opportunity of seeing the accounts and if the accounts were all made up in the same form, we could take them into consideration instead of reading the very direct statement that one county showed a deficit of £350,000 in one year. The committee make recommendations in paragraph 10 and at the end of paragraph 11—I am not going to weary the House by reading out those paragraphs—as to the form of future accounts and of their publication. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to shed some light upon this question when he replies I hope that he will be able to go further than he has gone in this document that was issued this afternoon.
I want to refer to a few specific points in the report, not necessarily in the order in which they appear there. I start off with the Minister of Agriculture and the Ministry themselves. Perhaps one of the most damaging paragraphs in the report is paragraph 102, which deals with the administrative organisation of the Ministry. I know that the Minister has said in this paper today—[Interruption.] Does the Minister agree with paragraph 102, which in effect contends that the machine of which he is in charge, is not a suitable machine to do the work?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I do not agree.

Sir T. Dugdale: The Minister will be able to tell us about it when he replies. Does he agree with the facts stated, and in particular that the Land Management Division should be re-organised? If he agrees with it, why has he done nothing about it before, and if he does not agree I hope that he will give us very definite reasons for the conclusions which he has reached. The report says very definitely:
Your committee consider that the time has now arrived when the Ministry, and in particular the Land Management Division, should be reorganised in order to promote efficiency and achieve economy both in public expenditure and manpower.
Those are very definite words with a very definite meaning. I see, from the paper that the Minister has issued this afternoon, that he is proposing to set up a committee to look into the whole position and to review the development of the organisation of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries since 1939. I ask the Minister to explain one point to us.
The wording of the paragraph appears to be unusual in a document of this kind. That wording is as follows:
The Minister has, at the request of the Permanent Secretary to the Department … 
That seems a different form of wording from that which is usually employed in setting up a committee of this kind. The Minister usually sets up the committee and gives it terms of reference, and it carries on with the work with which it is entrusted. These peculiar words are of interest to the House. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us exactly the meaning behind them, what it is proposed the functions of the new committee will be, and whether they will consider, among other things, the various remarks made by the Select Committee in paragraph 102 of the report. I know how confused administration is bound to get in these ever-changing days. One hears about horizontal and vertical organisations and it all becomes extremely confused. Unless it is clarified, we do not get where we want to at the end of the day.
Turning from that paragraph, I would say a word about "Lands in Possession," on page XXI. This is a serious portion of the report. The report shows that there are profits from lands in possession, but in fact, the figures are unreal, as is explained by the writers of the report. According to the Committee, the year 1947–48 brought not a profit but a loss of £1,417,504, incurred by lands in possession. Losses on a comparable scale are to be expected for 1948–49 and 1949–50. Going into further detail, this is equivalent to an average loss for the years 1947–48 of £6 per acre on lands in possession. I say again that we find the same very curious anomaly between different parts of the country. We find that in some counties they have been able to balance their accounts, while other counties have lost between £12 and even up to £20 per acre. Purely from the point of view of trying to learn about these things, I suggest that the important point is that it would be much better if we could really say where we were in these matters and could have accounts so as to be able to compare like with like.
Although the Minister must agree that this is a most unsatisfactory position, I think he will also agree that there is something more in it than accountancy.
How much better would it have been if for some time during the last four years he had been able to derequisition some of this land in possession and give a chance to our young farmers to obtain either farms or small-holdings from this land which they could farm for themselves. I would refer specifically to the last sentence of paragraph 84 on this subject, when the Committee used these words:
Your committee consider that decisions as to the future of this land should have been made before now.
There is something on this subject in the paper that has been issued, and no doubt we shall hear further from the Minister, but I think it the greatest pity that this land in possession has not been derequisitioned before, so as to give people who are now wanting land the opportunity to farm it. I believe they would do it at a profit and not only help themselves, but save the taxpayer a considerable amount of money.
Now I turn to the trading services. As a number of my hon. Friends wish to speak on this subject, I do not propose to weary the House with every detail. However, I would like to refer to two—the machinery service and the gang labour service. Between 1946 and 1949, the machinery service cost roughly £1 million a year. In 1947–48, 10 counties had a deficit from the working of the machinery service, again varying enormously between different counties—£40,000, in one county and £110,000 in another. If we could see these things and study them—and this is the theme running through the whole of my remarks to the House—we should be able to do our best to help the Minister to put right anything that is wrong and so make progress. I cannot find in the report evidence to show that the Minister has tried to encourage private contractors to provide the necessary services, which I think the Minister will agree would appear to be the most satisfactory method of dealing with this question.
I hope the Minister will agree with the various recommendations made by the Committee gradually to eliminate the machinery service, except for special work such as land reclamation and work dealing with marginal land. I know that the Minister will reply on the machinery service by saying that there is this problem of marginal land. There is that special problem, and we accept that. It


is my view that, as far as marginal land is concerned, the county committees responsible for giving machinery service should be reimbursed at an economic rate to start with in order to keep the accountancy right. Since it is in the interest of the nation that the maximum production from this land should be secured, the financial difference between what is economic from the point of view of the farmer and what is economic from the point of view of the operation of the county machinery service, must be made good to the individual farmer through a marginal production scheme or some similar scheme. Then I think we can get the two problems related to each other. Once we can get the machinery service working economically from the county point of view, we shall be able to help the marginal farmer through a marginal assistance scheme.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: What about those jobs which the contractors are unwilling to do? Apart from the problem of marginal land, there are many small jobs for which the farmers have no machinery, and the contractors are not willing to do them. What is the answer?

Sir T. Dugdale: I admit that there are those special cases. Perhaps the hon. Member is thinking about special machinery for drainage. What we have to try to do is to make it economical. If we are to assist, and perhaps rightly assist, any section of the agricultural industry, let it be done by a scheme whereby it is known by everybody that that section is being assisted, and do not hide it away in a machinery service.

Mr. J. Lewis: Assuming for a moment, as the hon. and gallant Member will agree, that there are a large number of small farms where farmers cannot afford to purchase their own plant and equipment, and have no buildings in which to store it, surely in those circumstances the service rendered by the county committees has been found necessary, at least in the past?

Sir T. Dugdale: I agree, but we have to make it economical. If we cannot make it economical let us know where the assistance is coming from. I should like to encourage co-operation between the farmers themselves. That does happen

in many places, and I think it would continue to develop if they did not think that this particular service would continue for all time.

Mr. Kenyon: Would not the hon. and gallant Member agree that the solution is to create bigger farms—to merge smaller farms so as to create economic units?

Sir T. Dugdale: I could not follow the hon. Member on that. We are very nearly in agreement on this point; it is only on the methods by which we do it that we disagree. I hope the Minister will agree with the Committee in what they say in paragraph 31, where they deal with the question of surplus machinery, and say that the method of sale should, and must, be by public auction. I am certain that unless that is laid down firmly, it is open to possible abuse, which is very undesirable.
I wish to say one word on a subject about which there may be considerable discussion, and that is the gang labour service. In this service, again, a very big loss has been incurred. I give this one figure which comes from the report. If we add together the administrative operating costs and the expenditure on hostels. the gang labour service has cost the taxpayer approximately £3 per week for every man employed. I wish to say at once that there is no doubt that this service has been of considerable value in the past in connection with food production. But surely the time has now come when it must be gradually reduced, not just wiped out overnight, but gradually reduced; because as constituted at present it is not an economic service to the community, if it ends in a loss of £3 per week for every man employed.
I hope that the Minister will give careful attention to this point and that he will do all he can to help farmers by providing hostel accommodation during the peak period of the year to accommodate people for seasonal labour. I ask him to keep his eyes upon this £3 per week per man and to devise ways and means of reducing it. Unless something is done, it will become an accepted fact throughout the countryside, a great deterrent to the economies of other people in all walks of life, and bad administration by the Minister of Agriculture. I hope he will attend to that matter.
There are many other matters which one could raise on this report, but I think that the mere fact that the Government have issued this document today has justified the request by hon. Members on this side of the House for this Debate. This report from Members of the Select Committee is full not only of interesting information but of interesting recommendations. Our main purpose in raising this question today is to give the Minister of Agriculture an opportunity to tell the House and through the House the country, his views on the recommendations and his intentions about the future in reference to the problems raised in the report.

Mr. John Morrison: I beg to second the Motion.

8.32 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): The first line of this Motion which can only be regarded as a censure Motion, whatever hon. Members opposite may say, states:
That this House accepts the recommendations contained in the Eleventh Report … 
and so on. If the House were to accept this Motion with those words in it, it would mean that we were accepting a part of the Eleventh Report of this Select Committee on Estimates and rejecting part of the Tenth Report of the same Committee which was issued earlier. I give this as only one illustration—I could give others—to show that the Motion could not be accepted with the word "recommendations" in it. Recommendation 24 states:
The Ministry and the County Committees should do more to help farmers who can recruit their own seasonal labour, by helping to provide temporary accommodation or domestic staff.
But in the Tenth Report published about the same time, the same Committee say in paragraph 12:
The Ministry of Works are the proper body to requisition or construct buildings for hostels, and your Committee recommend that no other Department should exercise these powers.
Which report shall we approve? Whatever sub-committee may have examined one part of the problem, the main Committee are responsible for the reports.

Mr. Turton: Can the right hon. Gentleman make clear the difference between a sponsoring Depart-

ment asking the Ministry of Works to provide accommodation? What is asked for in this Eleventh Report is that the Ministry should get these hostels, which should be run by the Ministry of Works, to provide accommodation for farmers in which they can put seasonal labour.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member's interjection is like "the flowers that bloom in the spring." It has nothing to do with the recommendation. The recommendation distinctly states that the Ministry of Agriculture should help to provide temporary accommodation, whereas the other recommendation said, "Hands off; leave it to the Ministry of Works." I leave it to hon. Members to make up their minds which they would like to do.
I welcome this Debate and I am sorry that there is not more time so that many more hon. Members could participate. I am afraid that I must apologise in advance for the time I shall take, because I must reply to a good deal of publicity which has been given to this report, and certainly to the extravagant language used both in the report itself and in the newspapers which copied a good deal of it. I welcome this Debate because it provides me with an opportunity to throw further light on matters raised in the Eleventh Report and to give some background which may very well be overlooked by hon. Members here and the general public outside.
I shall, of course, challenge some of the references in this Motion, but I should like to say now, lest I forget, that the Motion expresses regret at the delay in reorganising the county executive committees, which were only set up two years ago. As the Committee were sitting seven, eight or nine months ago, they suggest that I ought to have reorganised the committees almost before they had been set up.
I wish to express my appreciation for the time and care which the Committee gave to the study of the problems. [Laughter.] Hon. Members can perhaps reserve their laughter until the whip cracks, as one of my hon. Friends said some time ago. Their recommendations, for what they are worth, have been examined in detail with the object of drawing the greatest possible help and guidance from them. That is the pur-


pose of an Estimates Committee—to try to help any Government Department whose estimates they are examining to improve in efficiency, but not to put down censure Motions on the Order Paper after they have access to the facts.
Our observations have already been submitted to the Committee. As this Motion has been put on the Order Paper, I wish to say at the outset that I am very largely in agreement with the main recommendations of the Committee. Indeed, almost half the recommendations had been put into effect before this Committee started to sit, and at least another 45 per cent. were recommended by my officers when they were giving evidence to the Committee. If there is variance over some points of detail or presentation, I am no less grateful for the painstaking way in which the Committee carried out their examination.
When the report was published, it was the criticisms which, perhaps naturally, hit the headlines; but the report itself is not entirely adverse, as hon. Members who sat on the Committee will appreciate. The Committee themselves say in one of the opening paragraphs—paragraph 6:
… wherever they criticise they have also had in mind the great value of the work which has been, and is being, done by the Ministry and the County Committees.
Later in the same paragraph they say that they:
… appreciate that much credit is due, in particular, to the voluntary members of County Committees. These men have worked without financial reward, many of them throughout the stress of war and the almost equally difficult post-war period of transition, with zeal and enthusiasm.
I could not express too plainly my full agreement with those sentiments, but it would hardly be consistent to maintain at the same time that many of the activities for which these zealous and enthusiastic members have been responsible were badly done, mistaken and wasteful, for the two things do not quite fit. Later in the report, in discussing the individual services, the Committee again express appreciation of the value of these services and, to some extent, the difficulties under which the Committees worked. For example, of the machinery service they say that—
as a result of the organisation set up"—

that is, the wartime organisation—
increased food both for animals and for human consumption was obtained by more intensified cultivation of land already fertile, by cultivation of marginal land where the growing of arable crops in normal times was uneconomic, and by reclamation of waste land.
That is the Committee's observation, and they must have felt it or they would not have written it.
In the next paragraph, they record the Ministry's decision that the machinery service, which was never intended as more than a supplement to the efforts of farmers and private contractors, should be progressively reduced. That is the view of the Ministry, not of the Estimates Committee, but they point out that the urgent need for food production still remains. They note the view of the Ministry, with which they presumably agree, that without this service cultivation on a large area of land must have suffered. Although the Select Committee are critical of the financial losses sustained, it may be of some interest to the hon. Baronet if I tell him and other hon. Members that last year executive committees were responsible for cultivating no less than two million acres of land. Therefore, had there been no machinery service, it is fair to say that the amount of food produced would have been much smaller as a result.
Similarly, with the gang labour service. In their conclusions under this heading in paragraph 50, they express the view that the gang labour service has been of considerable value to food production, but they go on to say that it is a wasteful method of providing labour—and I will comment on that later—and that, if any further expansion is needed, the necessary labour should come from a fuller and more efficient employment of these men. Once more, while the Select Committee are greatly concerned at the financial losses on this service, they warn the Ministry in paragraph 41 against such increases in the charges as would lead to farmers refusing to employ committee labour.
These few extracts show that, while the Committee were, naturally enough, concerned over the financial aspects, they recognised something of the value of these services and perhaps of the difficulties under which they have been operated. Of course, there is a wider view at which


the House may like to look, and perhaps the simplest thing for me to do is to give a broader picture of one service. I select the labour service which figured so much in the headlines in the various newspapers.
The employment of pool labour by these committees began early in the war when the agricultural industry was given a production task which far outran the supply of labour available at that time. These labour pool's consisted of both men and women. Mostly the women were recruited through the Women's Land Army, and the men were gathered from all sources, including young men awaiting their call-up, older men whose own occupations had gone as a result of the war, conscientious objectors, aliens who had previously been interned, Irishmen, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. The only way—I repeat the only way—to get these men into useful agricultural work was through pool employment.
Even if there had been enough accommodation for them, it would have been futile and fantastic to expect individual farmers, knowing nothing whatever about these men, to be willing to take them all at once into individual employment. That could only be done by, first giving them some acclimatisation and training, and by hiring them out in parties to work for farmers. They would thus become capable of being selected by individual farmers and of being absorbed into the farming community. At the end of the war, committees had some 25,000 of these pool workers, of whom about 10,000 were men and the rest women. They also had at their disposal a very large number of prisoners of war, of whom, at the peak in 1946, getting on for 100,000 were working more or less regularly in agriculture, and a further 50,000 were on tap at seasons of heaviest pressure.
When the war came to an end, two things were obvious. One was that for a long time to come there could be no thought of reducing agricultural production. The other was that, within the next few years, some of the sources of wartime labour must definitely disappear. German prisoners would be due for repatriation, and the Women's Land Army could not be expected to continue at anything like the war-time level. Early in 1946, therefore, this problem of labour for the land was given very careful con-

sideration by a group of officers of the Agricultural Departments and the Ministry of Labour under the chairmanship of the then Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for West Birkenhead (Mr. Collick). They concluded that while every effort must be made during the next few years to stimulate the flow of British workers—and especially young people—into agriculture, special steps must be taken to fill the immediate gap. One result was to encourage the entry of more Poles into the industry from the Polish Resettlement Corps. Another was the offer made to suitable German prisoners, when the time came, to defer their repatriation.
In 1947, two decisions were taken which had a big bearing on this whole problem. One was that some scores of thousands of the old displaced persons—now known as European Voluntary Workers—should be given an opportunity of resettlement in this country. This was really a social problem arising out of the war. The other was the announcement by the Prime Minister in August of that year of the agricultural expansion programme, which showed that, so far from agriculture being able to look forward to an easier time over the next few years, the demands to be made upon it were heavier than during the war.
To absorb this new labour involved a vast amount of detailed work. During 1948 we had, with the ready help of the Ministry of Works and the co-operation of county committees, to find, prepare and furnish large numbers of additional hostels spread widely throughout the country to take these new men. In addition to the factors mentioned earlier as deterring farmers from taking immediately into their own employment the mixed bag of extra workers that were brought together during the war, there were the further factors that most of these newcomers spoke little or no English, that their habits and customs were different from ours, and that they naturally had no experience of British agriculture. They could never have become absorbed except through a start with committee employment and hostel accommodation. By the end of September, 1948, there were 30,000 foreign workers in the employment of committees.
The intention from the start was to use committee employment and hostel accom-


modation as the stepping stone to real absorption and resettlement. That takes time; but very useful progress has been made. There has, of course, been a considerable wastage from among these foreign workers for personal reasons or because they were unsuited to the work, and so on; but each month sees some hundreds of them transferring from committee employment into private agricultural employment.
We did not, however, give our attention solely to foreign workers. The Select Committee drew attention in their report in paragraph 44 to the efforts that have been made to resettle in agriculture some of the men thrown out of work in the Special Areas. When the Government decided two or three years ago that one method of tackling the problem of the pockets of unemployment in those areas was to offer the men transfers elsewhere, there was every reason why the Ministry of Agriculture, with the prospective shortage of labour on the land, should play its part. Meetings were held in South Wales, Merseyside, on the Tyne and elsewhere, and, with the help of the Ministry of Labour, some thousands were selected for employment with the county committees.
Moreover, a few of these committees took into employment men who could not leave their homes and transported them daily to agricultural work. The cost of that transport this document calls "losses." That is what the hon. Baronet said throughout his speech, and I shall refer to it again. It is true that a big proportion of the fellows about whom I have been speaking did not stay the course, and the experiment as a whole was truly expensive; but it matters little whether the cost came from the pocket labelled "Ministry of Labour," by way of unemployment benefits and national assistance, or, as was the case, from the pocket labelled "Ministry of Agriculture." They were not actually losses in the sense that this report documents. Agriculture has, in fact, found in this way many hundreds of useful recruits, even from our unemployment areas, some of them miners with pneumoconiosis, and all the rest, and they have found a new life, and I hope most of them a new hope. The scheme, however, has now served its purpose and is not being further continued.
A somewhat similar point is made in paragraph 45 of the report, in which reference is made to what are described as "schemes to relieve agricultural unemployment." During the winter of 1947–48, some regular workers, chiefly in the Eastern Counties, who had been stood off from private employment, were taken on to the committees' strength. The numbers were actually small, being only 1,400 over the whole country. The abject, however, was not to relieve unemployment, as seems to have been imagined, but to conserve the agricultural labour force. The House will recall that the agricultural expansion scheme had just been launched. Although some individual farmers seemed to find temporary difficulty in providing full employment for all their men—and I regret that some were not more farsighted—there was not the slightest doubt that as the expansion programme developed there would be an urgent need for all the skilled labour we could find. I was most anxious—and I stand by what I did then—that I should not allow these men to drift to other industries if we could keep them on the land.
Therefore, it was not merely a matter of taking them on to the pay-roll. Committees were authorised to do that only in so far as useful work could be found for them, and, if useful work could be found, even German prisoners had to be put in "cold storage" in order to find work for skilled British agricultural workers. They were employed largely on drainage and defence clearance work, which were definite benefits to agriculture. Last winter this same problem scarcely arose at all, and there were only a few individuals taken on. I agree that, as a matter of policy, it would not be desirable that regular farm workers should be taken on by agricultural committees. Indeed, employment should be all the other way—from committees to private farmers, rather than from private farmers to committees.
I hope that broad picture will help to bring out this vital point. Gang labour services are naturally treated in the report as a trading service; but it has been and is something much wider than a trading service. In one sense it was an emergency service, arising out of the war, for supplying the smaller farmers in particular with labour which they did not need and could


not afford throughout the whole year, and for which, in any case, they had not the necessary houses, even if they could do with the workers permanently. It was also an employment agency providing the means of entry for strangers into employment through the committees. It has also operated as a vast group of training centres—62 in number. Every county has done its own training, giving newcomers to the industry that initial experience without which they could not hope or expect to find permanent employment in agriculture. I want to emphasise this particularly to the members of the Estimates Committee. It is not usual to expect emergency services, employment exchanges or training services to pay their way. I think that paragraph 40, where they say,
Your Committee have been greatly concerned at these considerable losses,
is a gross abuse of the British language, because one does not expect employment exchanges or training centres to pay their way. It is not surprising, in fact, that this service, combining something of all of them, has been unable to show a clean balance sheet. I am anxious that all avoidable losses should be avoided, and our aim has been to reduce the net loss to a minimum; but it would be regrettable in the extreme if the only comments that the House saw fit to pass on this enormous mass of work that has been done by men of good will throughout the country on this vital job—the zealous and enthusiastic men to which the report refers—were that the trading account fails to show a balance.
The main recommendation which the Select Committee made regarding the pool labour service is that notice should be given at once that it will be progressively reduced with the object of ending it in three years' time, but they also make the reservation that it may be necessary to retain some mobile labour for reclamation schemes. Their main recommendation involves important issues of policy and finance, but it had already been decided, long before this Committee started to sit, to act broadly along the lines of their recommendation. The situation and outlook as regards the supply of labour have changed greatly since the days immediately following the war and hon. Members must bear this in mind. It has been a problem both during the war

and in the days succeeding the war: in the inter-war years, from 1921 to 1939, we were losing approximately 15,000 skilled workers a year.
I am glad to be able to say that that situation has been completely changed. In June, 1945, the number of male regular agricultural workers, the backbone of the labour force, was only 448,000; in 1946, it was 477,000; in 1947, it was 491,000; in 1948, it was 506,000; and the June returns for this year show over 520,000. Thus we have not only stopped the drift from the land, but we have turned it into a drift to the land and this labour force has contributed towards that to some extent. The need for maintaining a large supplementary force of regular labour and for retaining the training and placing facilities has, therefore, been greatly reduced.

Major Legge-Bourke: As the Minister appears to be leaving the point about labour, may I ask whether it is not a fact that in the last year, between September, 1948, and September, 1949, there was a fall of 18,000?

Mr. Williams: No, I do not think that is the case. The hon. and gallant Member has been looking at the Ministry of Labour's figures instead of the Ministry of Agriculture's figures. [Laughter.] Perhaps hon. Members will permit me to proceed. The figures are based on different calculations and I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the fact is that there was a further increase between June and September, rather than a decrease of 18,000, and that the figures I have given are the real figures. We recruited a lot between 1939 and 1945 but the figures have gone up from 448,000 in 1945 to 520,000—and that is the essential feature. We are not losing agricultural workers at the rate of 15,000 a year; we are gaining agricultural workers at the rate of 10,000 or 15,000 a year.
I repeat that the need for maintaining a large supplementary labour force is not nearly so strong now as it was, but the need must and always will vary with localities. All county committees have already reduced their labour force very materially; indeed, the number of committee employees today is less than half what it was at the peak autumn period in 1948, and some committees are actu-


ally thinking of closing down this service altogether by 1950 or 1951, although others will probably find it necessary to carry on, though with reduced numbers, for a few years longer. The hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) must not assign any credit to the Select Committee for what we did before the Committee started to sit. That is all I want to say to him.
I am not prepared to give a precise date when this committee pool labour will finally be abolished, but I agree with the Select Committee that it should be reduced to the point where we can merely service those smaller farmers who are unable to provide for their own needs. It is already clear that after 1952 there will be little more than the remnants of the service left. It is quite likely, however, that, county by county, where conditions vary enormously, the numbers will vary, too; and it may very well be that we shall require some for reclamation schemes in the future.
Just one word about the machinery service. The hon. Baronet referred to this. As I have said so much about gang labour, I think it is unnecessary to weary the House with so much detail again as that in which I dealt with labour. The machinery service grew up in an exactly identical way to that of the gang labour force. When arable cultivation had to be increased so enormously during the war, farmers had not enough machinery to do the work, nor money enough to buy the machinery, even if the machinery had been available, which it was not. The fullest possible use had to be made of the limited supplies of machinery in the country, and means had to be found to supplement the efforts of the smaller farmers. That was the origin of the county machinery service.
Now there is no longer a shortage, save in a few specialised machines that we import from North America. But there is still a need amongst poor farmers who cannot afford to fit themselves out with all the tools they need to maintain the highest possible level of production; and there is a need, too, which contractors have not yet fully met, for services requiring specialised and very expensive equipment. The hon. Baronet asked me what we had done about encouraging contractors. I can tell him

and the House that at several mass meetings of farmers which I have addressed, I have encouraged the contractors in every part of the country, wherever they care to step in. It is only where no contractors are available that the county executive committees are bound to do the job if we are to get food production.
The big increase in the last few years in mechanisation has gone a long way to meet the needs of farming generally, and it has tended to offset the need for more labour by increasing the productivity of existing labour, and we have reckoned that half the additional production of the expansion programme will come from greater efficiency. I am glad to be able to say that we can report satisfactory progress in that direction. Now already the machinery services are being steadily reduced, and every possible step is being taken to improve efficiency and economy. Again, I will not commit myself to any precise date when the last machine will be sold, nor undertake that reduction will take place uniformly county by county. The principle that committees have been instructed to observe is that they should limit themselves to work which could not be done in any other way.
The hon. Baronet referred to lands in possession. Here I cannot escape the feeling that the Select Committee did less than justice to the county agricultural executive committees, which did such good work in very difficult circumstances. Much of the land taken over was derelict or semi-derelict when taken over. It was land that, for one reason or another, was derelict. Perhaps, it was of poor quality soil; it may have been in small, scattered sites; it may have been that the cost of reclamation was prohibitive, so that the ordinary farmer would not look at it. In paragraph 80 of this document, the Estimates Committee, when reviewing the cost and so-called losses, states:
… no individual farmers could escape bankruptcy if they sustained such losses.
Of course they could not; but no individual farmer would look at such land as the county agricultural executive committees had to take over. We just had to take over this land if the nation's food supply was to be increased, and the only way to do it was through the county agricultural executive committees. In the


nature of things, reclamation and cultivation are always costly. Some of the land, however, that we took over, after a comparatively short space of time, was brought into a condition in which tenants would look at it, and it was handed over to the tenants.
The part of the county committees in the whole business was to do the donkey work and suffer what the Estimates Committee called the loss; but a good deal of this land had to be farmed by county committees covering the years that the Select Committee have looked at, and it was on land not yet good enough for tenants to take over that these losses were made. Before the Select Committee started their investigation, a small working party in my Department had gone fully into this matter and found that the position varied enormously between county and county. There were no doubts at all that some committees made better arrangements than others for direct farm work, but I am convinced from personal experience that the financial results were due largely to varying conditions in the counties rather than to differences in efficiency. It is not necessarily true that the greater loss in any county is due to less efficiency: it may be due to more initiative, or to greater efforts to produce the maximum food for the nation.
Following the report of the departmental working party I have just referred to, and later the report of the Select Committee, suitable instructions have been sent to committees asking them for more attention to be paid to the financial results and to applying measures for increased efficiency. The accounts for 1948–49 show a loss of only about half those of the previous year, and that sort of improvement will continue. The Select Committee say that the only satisfactory remedy is to decide on the future derequisitioning of this land, or for it to be purchased from the owners. With this I agree. In fact, a review of all requisitioned land was put in hand early last year—again before the Committee came into existence—and a good deal of it has already been released. There is a large number of individual cases still to be dealt with, but we are dealing with them as fast as we can.
Perhaps the hon. Baronet will be interested in these figures. In September,

1948, we had 339,349 acres under requisition, in 6,000 separate parcels of land. Since the order went out for committees to examine these places to see which ought to be purchased and which ought to be derequisitioned, 70,000 acres have been derequisitioned, 126,000 acres have been approved for release, 11,000 acres have been approved for purchase; and decisions are outstanding on another 132,000 acres. That may mean 2,000 separate parcels of land. It is not an easy job for county executive committees to go through such a large number of pieces of land as 6,000.
Let me now say something about the form of the estimates and publication. I do not propose to deal in detail with the paragraphs and recommendations of the report of the Select Committee on the form of the estimates for the trading service. The Committee were anxious that we should bring out as clearly as possible the whole cost of our service, including administration and other overheads, not only in the account but in forward trading estimates year by year. I ask the hon. Baronet and others to note what that means. We are putting the main recommendations on estimates and estimating into effect, with one exception. That exception is in lands in hand, for we do not see how we could possibly make a worthwhile estimate for land in possession or being used in many bits and pieces scattered all over the country. The farmer has, of course, definite ideas in his mind on how he will try to make a profit on the subsequent year's working, but the farmer does not prepare estimates in the form of a time-table of a public service; nor does he have such a scattered and varied lot of holdings to deal with as we have.

Sir T. Dugdale: Are there no figures county by county?

Mr. Williams: No, no more than the reply of the Department which the hon. and gallant Member quoted this afternoon.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman says "No more than the reply." The reply does not deal with the presentation of accounts county by county. It talks of a combined account. Will that combined account show the results in each county?

Mr. Williams: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will read recommendation 4 and the reply to it; he has the Departmental reply before him, and I do not think that I need waste the time of the House in reading a long paragraph which gives accurately the reasons why we are not prepared to accept that part of the recommendation.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Does the combined account envisage issuing the results county by county?

Mr. Williams: I do not think that is possible or practicable. Therefore, I do not commit myself to it. I turn for a moment to paragraphs 52 to 64 dealing with pest control. These have been studied in detail by my Department, and I shall refer only briefly to the general question of the cost of this particular service. While I recognise the dangers of inflated administrative cost where functions are divided, I do not think there is the slightest risk of this happening in this particular case, as referred to in recommendation 27.
Local authorities under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act, 1949, carry the responsibility throughout their districts of seeing that the provisions of that Act are implemented. I see no clash of interests or danger of overlapping because committees may maintain the service for the destruction of pests on farms on a purely voluntary basis—farmers need not call in the county executive committee if they do not desire to do so—and on a repayment basis. It will be for the benefit of food production, whereas if recommendation 27 of the Committee's report were accepted, there would be no service available for destroying rats and mice in agricultural areas. The county executive committee would be reduced to dealing with harmful birds, foxes or moles, but would have no power to enable their trained technicians to deal with rats and mice and, in many counties, rabbits.
I know that the cost of pest control may seem high, but it covers a wide variety of activities—the control of infestation of food arriving in ships or kept in store in this country, contract services for farmers to keep down pests of all kinds, grants to urban and rural district councils, inspection and administrative work and

instructional and research work at my Department's laboratories in London. Some reference was made to the sounder economy in Scotland than in England and Wales. I need only remind hon. Members of that Committee and the House that the instructional work and research work of the laboratories is a charge on the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and not on the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is quite a proper thing, but I think it is well to remind members of the Estimates Committee of that fact.
Nevertheless, while we are repeatedly searching for further economy, we must not overlook the colossal waste of food in this country due to pests. The figures were given when we introduced the Prevention of Damage by Pests Bill earlier this year. Recommendation 27 was fully discussed in Standing Committee and finally on the Report stage, and the proposal was rejected by the House. Therefore, to accept that recommendation would not only compel me to abrogate Section 101 of the 1947 Act but also to turn down a decision of this House.
I will how deal with the National Agricultural Advisory Service and the Agricultural Land Service—and finally with the administration and organisation of my Department. The two services, although comparatively new—I speak of them as established and, I might say, cherished institutions—like most of our institutions, are objects of criticism as well as of affection, but that is only because they are achieving results fairly quickly. The difficult requirements of the expansion programme have called for a more rapid development of food production than any Member contemplated when we were debating the Agriculture Bill. The Agricultural Land Service was started only in 1948, and I think the Select Committee were a little ungenerous when they suggested that little has so far been attempted by it. I do not know what they expected it to do in six or seven months—they do not give it a chance. Surely a service of this kind was entitled to find its feet. I am satisfied that it is already settling down and doing a great job. I think it was less than generous of the Select Committee to cast reflections upon the Agricultural Land Service.
In common with some other Departments, the Ministry of Agriculture, due to the nation's needs, have had to expand


their functions and organisation rapidly since 1939. The staff of something like 3,000 has grown to 18,000, largely due to the two services I have mentioned, and the decision of the House to continue permanently the county agricultural executive committees. I have no doubt at all that the main lines of our expansion have been soundly laid. While that may be true, it may well be that all the decisions we have taken may not be the best. Therefore, in answering the question as to what we are doing in regard to paragraph 102, I can say that, in accordance with Government practice, we thought the time had come to review the development of the Department, with particular reference to the working of our agricultural executive committees, their decentralised activities generally and their relationship to headquarters office, and whether any changes are necessary.
The committee which will undertake this review will be composed of Mr. John Ryan, C.B.E., vice-chairman, Metal Box Company, Limited; Mr. J. R. Bickersteth, E.L.A.S., chairman, East Sussex Agricultural Executive Committee; Mr. G. S. Dunnett, deputy-secretary, M.A.F.; Mr. F. Grant, O.B.E., undersecretary, M.A.F.; Mr. H. G Purcell, J.P., British Oil and Cake Mills, Limited, and Mr. J. R. Simpson, C.B., Director of Organisation and Methods, His Majesty's Treasury. That outside committee will, I believe, be of infinite value to us, and I await with interest any recommendations they may make for improvement to our organisation.
I think I have dealt with all the topics touched upon by the Select Committee's report. I should like to acknowledge the very useful service the Committee did in examining the various subjects so closely. But my Department did not wait either for this Debate or the Committee's report. We put into effect in 1948 many of the suggestions they have made, and other recommendations were in train during the time the Committee were taking evidence. I associate myself fully with the statement in the sixth paragraph of the report, in which the Committee say that:
Whatever they criticise, they have in mind the great value of the work which has been done and is being done by the Ministry and the county Committees…. Much credit is due, in particular, to the voluntary members of county Committees. These men have worked without financial reward, many of them throughout the stress of war and the almost

equally difficult post-war period of transition, with zeal and enthusiasm.
I am sure the House will agree that criticism must not blind us to the great value of their services.
I hope I have said enough to satisfy the House that this Motion is merely playing politics, and is not justified by the facts. I also hope that the House will do with the Motion what I think it ought to do with it.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I am very glad, as Chairman of the Estimates Sub-Committee, whose report is under discussion, to have an opportunity first to thank the Minister for such compliments as he offered to the Committee and, second, to say that although I listened carefully to his speech I could not find that on any important point his description of what the Ministry have done differed fundamentally or seriously from the description in our report. Nor can I say that the right hon. Gentleman's rather long speech seemed to contribute very much more than his succinct reply to the report, which has been published today. From the point of view of Chairman of the Committee, that reply seemed a reasonably satisfactory reply to receive from a Minister. Looking through it—it is difficult to judge each recommendation—it seems that the comments of the Minister on about three-quarters of our recommendations are very satisfactory indeed.
There are one or two points on which the Minister is definitely at variance with the Committee, which is not surprising, but there is only one major point, which I will come to in a moment, on which there is any difference between the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee. That is one of the reasons why I deprecate the fact that this Motion has been put down which is, in effect, a censure Motion on the Minister. I deprecate it because the Minister's reply seems satisfactory, except on one important point which is not referred to in the Motion. I also deprecate it because, although I am a relatively new member of the Estimates Committee, I believe that if two members of the Sub-Committee seize a report at the earliest possible moment, before the Secretary of State for Scotland has replied, and put down a Motion which amounts to a censure Motion, it is likely


to make the work of the Estimates Committee very much more difficult in future.
I regard the Estimates Committee as a body which represents the taxpayers. When we look critically at expenditure we do so as Members representing the taxpayers. If the Minister seems unnecessarily sensitive on some points I am sorry, but I think that only shows that we have been carrying out our duty well, and a duty which has not been carried out for a long time. That does not justify, however, making political use of the Committee. I am informed—and this is rather a compliment to the Committee in some ways—that only two reports of Select Committees have been debated during this Parliament. There is no precedent for a report being used as the basis for such a censure Motion. We always like precedents in this House, and there is perhaps nothing against them. I just draw the attention of the House to the fact that it is a new development. Of course, it is very near a General Election and as one can understand, that affects what people say. I regret that the House will be divided tonight, because it has been a tradition which has survived since the war that agriculture was not a matter of direct party conflict, and this Motion tonight is a reflection upon the work of these county committees which are new to peace time, and from which I hope for considerable results.
I should like to turn now to some of the Committee's recommendations. The Minister of Agriculture would have avoided some of this trouble if he had not given the appearance in the past of trying to conceal facts from the House of Commons. If he had been more willing to publish the results of the trading activities of the county committees he would not have created in the minds of Members of Parliament the feeling that something was being kept from them. Members of Parliament always resent that. The Minister is making a mistake in not accepting the recommendation to the affect that the accounts of the county committees should be published. I do not believe he will escape from this sort of criticism until he or some other Minister of Agriculture agrees to the publication of these accounts.
It is no use his saying that he can provide these accounts for select Members of Parliament on the Public Accounts Committee or on the Select Committee on Estimates. There is nothing binding on the confidence of Members of Parliament in those Committees, and if they are furnished with information I do not think they are entitled, as a general rule, to keep it to themselves, particularly as they are a special body of Members who take it on themselves to judge on behalf of the taxpayer whether the money has been wisely spent or not. If he gives this information in future, as suggested by the Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, he cannot question making it public generally. I believe it will be much better to make it public. He would help to raise the morale of the county committees who do not know what they are doing themselves and how they compare with other committees.
It is quite possible for the information given to us on the Committee and studied by us to be given to the general public so that a generally informed public in the counties can themselves judge the activities of the committees. That is my great criticism of the reply of the Minister both verbally and on paper. I would remind him of a saying attributed to the Duke of Wellington. He was being threatened with some publication which it was thought he would not like, and he made the famous exclamation "Publish and be damned." I wish the Minister would take up that attitude in giving us all the facts. I do not believe he has got a lot to hide, if he will put the system of accountancy into order. That is the last object I want to deal with.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) did not fully realise the implications of the recommendations in this report on the alteration of the form of the estimates from the form of the accounts. I should like to point out that we were recommending something which is new in the Estimates and in the form in which Government Departments keep their accounts. It is a very complicated form that we have recommended, but I believe that it is one which is required by Government Departments which undertake training activities. The old system of the Estimates and the Appropriation


Account was laid down in Mr. Gladstone's day, I think, and it suited Government Departments which were purely administrative. When we have Government Departments carrying out trading activities like a private business, the present form of accounts does not suit at all. We were recommending in this report that a precedent should be established, and that the Ministry of Agriculture accounts should be presented to this House and to the country in a new form which would give us a better understanding of what is happening, and would give within the Ministry, and I believe to the Treasury, a better control over the expenditure and income.
I am not going to vote against the Ministry of Agriculture tonight because I am not going to record a vote against the new county committees. I believe. they are doing good work which I wish to see encouraged. This report of a committee with which all parties are concerned is, in some respects, a compromise. There may be wording which particular Members would have expressed slightly differently. I am not going to vote in favour of the Motion interpreting this report as a wholesale condemnation of the Ministry of Agriculture. My intention was never that. I regret to see that this report has been made use of in this way. My impression of the report is that it is a serious attempt to examine what was wrong. There have been things wrong. The report gives credit for what has been done well. It sets out figures of crop production and increase, and it recognises the difficulties under which county committees have been working. I believe that those committees have been doing good work and I do not propose to register any condemnation of them.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: As a member of the Estimates Committee who took some part in the preparation of this report, I should like to submit two propositions. The first is that the Estimates Committee, together with the Public Accounts Committee, has a special position in this House. Members in the Estimates Committee work in a rather different way. They put their minds into a common pool and they work together. They drop their political prejudices, or endeavour to do so, and they report objectively. They may not always be

right in what they say, as has been shown in this Debate. We do not claim to be omniscient. We do our best, and our object is to help the Minister.
My second proposition is that the Motion is tantamount to a Vote of Censure on the Minister. Hon. Members who are familiar with the working of the Estimates Committee will recognise that the phrase "to express concern" about some administrative point, is a not unfamiliar one upstairs. It is fairly often used in an endeavour to help a Minister and his Department. To express concern on the Floor of this House, as the Opposition are doing, is to express a vote of "No confidence" in the Government. Presumably, therefore, the Opposition feel that my right hon. Friend has done an extremely bad job and is worthy of the censure of this House.
Let us examine the Motion as it stands in the light of the report and of the departmental reply. The Motion asks the House to accept the recommendations of the Select Committee. If I understand English that means that it asks the House to accept all the recommendations of the Select Committee. But, as has already been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale), my right hon. Friend has put in a departmental reply in which he accepts most of the recommendations which have been made by the Select Committee, but not all. When he has not accepted a recommendation he has, in my opinion, generally given very cogent reasons for not doing so. Does the Opposition therefore feel that the Estimates Committees, set up for a limited period to inquire into a limited range of subjects, actually know better than the Minister who is doing the job? It is a preposterous point of view to put forward, and I think on that ground alone this Motion must fall.
But that is not all. What is the next point? The Committee expresses concern at the large losses made by county agricultural committees. This is a grossly misleading statement and I would draw the attention of hon. Members who were not on the Select Committee to the qualifying references which we make in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 37. I commend these to the attention of hon. Members, otherwise they will be lead to imagine that we recommended something and made state-


ments which we never made at all. I think I can fairly say we recognised that the services under discussion were absolutely essential during the war and during the period of transition following the war.
We recognised the need to recruit E.V.W.s to take the place of German prisoners who have been repatriated. I can go so far as to say that we agreed that although outwardly the apparent loss of a county committee might appear to be very large, the fact that it had a large loss against its name did not necessarily means that it was doing a bad job. We recognised all these things but in their Motion the Opposition do not recognise that. They do the exact opposite. The Opposition Motion is a complete oversimplification of the report of the Select Committee.
The Opposition in their Motion regret delay. Perhaps they did not read, or perhaps they did not know, that a departmental reply was coming along, and that my right hon. Friend would be able to prove, as he has proved, that where we made certain recommendations he anticipated some of them by anything from six months to a year before we made those recommendations. That is nothing against us. We were working together and seeking to help the Minister.
What are we to deduce from all this? We can only deduce that if the Opposition are doing this kind of thing for party purposes the influence of the Estimates Committee is likely very seriously to decline. The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) has already referred to that point and I believe that the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond was not very happy about his position. His speech was not in accord with the Motion before the House.
I shall listen with interest if he happens to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to what is said by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) who was a Member of the Select Committee and who has now, together with the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) put his name to the Motion on the Order Paper. I have very considerable regard for the Estimates Committee. It is deplorable that the Opposition, by putting forward partisan Motions

of this kind which cannot be substantiated, should do such damage to the work done patiently and without much publicity upstairs by Members of the Estimates Committee.
I should like to make a few comments of my own, and I hope that they will be more constructive than those of the Opposition. The point to which I wish to refer has been mentioned already by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cumberland. It is that apart altogether from the boards of nationalised industries. Government Departments are to an even greater degree becoming engaged in forms of trading. It may be quasitrading like these county agricultural committees, because I take the point made by my right hon. Friend that they have other functions such as the placing of workers in employment and the training of workers. I acknowledge both those points, but there are other Departments—it may be the Ministry of Food or the Forestry Commission—which are engaged in genuine trading. Where a Government Department is engaged in genuine trading, I believe that the existing cash accounts militate against efficiency. I believe that a trading account based upon commercial methods is badly needed and that only by this means will we be able to secure a really high degree of efficiency in the working of Government trading Departments.
I very much regret what the Opposition have done tonight. I am satisfied with the Departmental reply, and if the Opposition are so ill-advised as to call a Division I shall have great pleasure in going into the Lobby in support of my right hon. Friend, who in the past four years has done a remarkably fine job of work which I hope that he will continue to do in the years to come.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Turton: We have listened to two remarkable speeches by the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) and the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot). Both seem to forget that it is the duty and function of this House to examine matters of importance brought before it by the Estimates Committee. When I heard some of the remarks made by one who sat with distinction as chairman of that sub-committee, it seemed to me that he was at times trying to


deny what he had himself written in the report. The hon. Member for Accrington said that here, after all, the Minister must know better than the Estimates Committee.

Mr. J. Lewis: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) is Chairman of this sub-committee. Is it in Order for the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) to accuse the hon. Member for North Cumberland of seeking to divest himself of responsibility for the function he exercises under the authority of this House?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order for me. It is a point which the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) can answer for himself.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) has done his best to try to curtail this Debate by his interruptions. In the very short time which remains, let us try to see what this House has to consider. This Motion is no great sweeping indictment of the Minister of Agriculture, but it is an indictment as is shown in the report, on two very important matters. One is that these accounts are confused and uncoordinated. The second is that £14 million of the taxpayers' money has had to be spent in order to balance these trading services. Those, as I see the position, are the two indictments.
The Minister of Agriculture, in a very lengthy—it had to be lengthy—but very comprehensive speech, referred to the question of accounts and made his great objection to what the Estimates Committee recommended. He said that it was not practicable to give the accounts county by county. I ask him and I ask the House to think a little about what he said on that matter. Every hon. Member of that Committee was handed in confidence the accounts of the counties, county by county. We are now in the embarrassing position of having that knowledge, but of having to guard that knowledge because it is our honour to do so. It is a very invidious position. The Minister and his officials have prepared these accounts, and we, in our Committee, rightly asked him to publish them, not only the accounts that relate to the past that we have in our private

keeping, but also the accounts to be published in the future, because we believe that it would be a good thing for the taxpayers and also for the good of the country.
I always feel on this subject that where the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) has really lapsed, is in his indictment of all the counties. Even in these accounts, we see some counties have suffered grievous losses, and, after all, £14 million of the taxpayers' money in one year is no small matter. Again, £350,000 have been lost by one county in one year, and we could not give the name of the county.

Mr. T. Williams: I hope the hon. Member will drop the word "losses." It is an abuse of the English language.

Mr. Turton: I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) once said that pounds, shillings and pence were meaningless symbols. It is a great pity that the Minister of Agriculture now takes that view. What the taxpayers realise is that they have to pay for one particular county a very large sum, and in another county—[Interruption.] I listened to the Minister with the greatest patience while he put forward his views, and I hope that I shall be allowed to put forward my views without constant interruptions by the junior Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis).
There are some counties carrying on these operations without suffering losses, and I want the House to realise that. The great drawback to this position of unpublished accounts is that the country does not know which counties are carrying on these trading services at a profit and which are carrying them on at a loss. I hope the Minister will think again on the question of publication; and I think it was regrettable that in his speech he evaded the question of publication county by county. He never said that he would not do it, but merely talked about combined accounts.
Let me, in the short time that remains, try to deal with this question of a loss of £14 million. Let me concentrate, because there is so very little time, on one or two of the services. I only want to say this about the machinery service. The Minister said that some counties had a loss on machinery. I hope that, when I give my illustrations, Members opposite


will not interrupt or say that I am betraying a confidence, because I am only going to quote figures given in the evidence and in the report.
One county, the West Riding of Yorkshire, had a loss of £110,000 in one year, while the two neighbouring counties, the North and East Ridings, either made no deficit or hardly any deficit. They nearly balanced their accounts. Why is that? It is because of a difference in methods between the three counties. One county is allowing the machinery, which belongs to the committees, to be handed out to agricultural contractors, with the result that the work is done by them and is economic. When the committees have operated their machinery services, they have recorded these very large losses, and I am sorry that the Minister and the Ministry have not realised that fact. I cannot give all the illustrations that I should like to give, not merely because of the time, but because I cannot quote figures not published in our report.
The Minister said that he was doing all he could to encourage agricultural contractors. He said that he was doing it on every platform on to which he went. But it is not only on the platform that these young men want encouragement. They want practical encouragement; they want to be allowed to get agricultural machinery, and they want to know when they set up in business that they will not be knocked out by the county committees. When we read the evidence, we find that a Mr. Weighell—Question 2040—said that he found many young men coming back from the war who had been in R.E.M.E. wanting to start up in the agricultural contracting business but who could not get the machinery, and who also dare not start up because of this competition from the county committees. I hope that the Minister will give more encouragement than he gives on the platform.
I will now turn to gang labour, and I want to make one thing clear because the Minister, in a surprising interjection when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) told him that according to the figures in September this year there were 18,000 fewer employed than last year, said that they were only Ministry of Labour figures, and that his figures

were correct. But my hon. and gallant Friend was actually quoting the September return figures which showed a drop of 18,000 from September, 1948, to September, 1949, at a time when the Economic Survey of 1949 stated that we should have an increase of 10,000. I make that point because it would be unfortunate if the Minister's statement made it appear that there were more agricultural workers than there really are. It would appear that he was wrong in accusing my hon. and gallant Friend of inaccuracy, and in accusing the Ministry of Labour of being inaccurate, because the September return shows the same figure.
The Minister said that in the years 1946–49 we were dealing with pockets of unemployment and that now we need no longer carry out the policy of gang labour. I believe that the indictment is not to be laid at the door of the Ministry of Agriculture, but at the door of the Government. Unemployment should be dealt with by the Ministry of Labour and not by the Ministry of Agriculture. I do not believe that these agricultural committees should be switched from their main job of producing food in order to deal with unemployment. I deplore that part of the Minister's speech in which he tried to excuse these very large losses—after all, £6 million in a year is a very large loss—by saying that we were dealing with pockets of unemployment.
I will give one illustration. Out of 1,651 men trained for agriculture, only two went into the industry. That is a great and costly failure. That particular county was paying out £113,000 in wages. Those expenses are mentioned, the others are not. Their income for the year was £20,000—a recovery rate of less than 20 per cent. Again, we find that in the county of Norfolk the recovery rate of gang labour in 1946–47 was 18.6 per cent. That is a grievous loss. If the other counties balance their accounts it is wrong that the county of Norfolk—

Mr. Harold Davies: Were they prisoners?

Mr. Turton: —should only recover 18.6 per cent.

Mr. Davies: rose —

Mr. Turton: I cannot give way.

Mr. Davies: These were prisoners.

Mr. Turton: I hope the hon. Member will not interrupt again.

Mr. Davies: I have not interrupted except on this occasion. Qualify it. Tell the truth. I challenge the hon. Member.

Mr. Turton: The Minister told us that in recent weeks he had made certain decisions on this matter, but the Select Committee has been looking at the Estimates not only for 1946–47 and 1947–48 but for 1948–49, and the curious fact which that brings out is that the acreage which has been farmed direct by the committees has increased during these years and the losses have been immense. The Committee said losses have been £14 to £20 an acre; in fact, in one county, represented by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely, the loss was £29 per acre in one year. There were good reasons for it.
I ask the Minister to make earlier decisions in this matter of land in possession. There are many young farmers who would be willing to take over land now being farmed by the committees, and if these lands were advertised there would be replies from a very great number of people. We are led to the conclusion that the Minister has been confused by the large increase in his staff and has stopped the county committees from doing the job they are very well qualified to do—encouraging good farming of the land of England. I believe that they have had their minds distracted from the running of these things on economic lines by the masses of forms and directions they have received from different bodies. I appeal to the Minister to get these committees re-organised at the earliest possible moment.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Reid: The Motion before the House criticises not merely the Ministry but also the voluntary members of the county agricultural committees. These committees took over from the war executive county committees which carried on during the war, also as volunteers, and which spent money regardless of loss. They had to do so. That system survived for some time and it takes a good deal of time to organise the thing on a proper basis.
I am not going into what the Committee reported and the criticisms it

made. I would merely say that this Motion was put down before the Minister had had time to reply. That is an extraordinary thing to do. The Minister's reply this evening satisfied me completely. He is trying to meet us in every way; he has accepted a lot of our recommendations and has agreed to experiment with recommendations where he is not quite certain whether they are sound or not.
However, I did not wish to speak on that point. I wanted to point out that we sat on this Committee and worked not on party lines; we worked candidly and put a tremendous amount of trouble into our report. Then, when we had finished, what happened? We found that the Conservative Party had put down a Vote of Censure on party lines, even though the Committee had never worked on party lines during the whole of its sitting. When we examine this Motion, what does it mean? It means that the party opposite either are advancing it simply for propaganda purposes or are trying to force the Minister to accept views which which he does not agree—
It being Ten o ' Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

CALF SUBSIDY SCHEME, ENGLAND

10.0 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I beg to move,
That the Draft Calf Rearing Scheme (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) (Extension and Payment) Order, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.
I need not occupy the time of the House very long to commend this Motion to the House. Hon. Members will recall that power was taken in 1947 down to 1951 to provide a calf subsidy for those calves reared up to the age of 12 months. In the first two years the subsidy was £4 for a steer calf and £3 for a heifer. We had two Debates in the House, and three points arose. I was impressed by what hon. Members said in all parts of the House with regard to the £4 and £3, and also about the standard of calves to be reared, and about the payment for certification officers.
I think hon. Members will agree that in this order I have pretty well accepted the


collective voice of the House, in that a change has been made from £4 for a steer to £5 and from £3 for a heifer to £2. With regard to the standard of calves to be reared, the standard has been raised. All certifying officers have been instructed by my livestock officers in the new standards, and I am satisfied that there is already an improvement all over the country. With regard to the payments for certifying officers, they have been changed, and now they are on a sliding scale. A person who in one visit can certify 10 calves receives a payment of 3s. 6d. per calf, which includes of course, any travelling expenses, and so forth; from 11 to 20 the payment is reduced to 2s. 6d.; and for any number beyond 20 the payment is down to 1s. 6d.
Therefore in view of the fact that I have conceded all three points to the collective voice of the House I hope the House will readily agree that for the next 12 months the calf subsidy shall be £5 for a steer and £2 for a heifer. For the final year the size of the subsidy will be determined at the time of the 1950 February review.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Hurd: I am sure that all of us who are directly concerned in a practical way with the calf rearing subsidy will welcome the changes that the Minister has made, because they do, as he says, reflect the general concensus of opinion already expressed in this House. Some of us, while recognising the good results which are flowing from the subsidy, are a little concerned about the standard the Minister sets for the certifying officers when they are actually approving calves for subsidy. The Minister mentioned that a new set of instructions had recently been issued to those gentlemen. I wonder if the Minister could give us just a little information on that?
Those of us who are farmers are very conscious of the subsidies that we receive. This £7,000,000 calf rearing subsidy is part, of course, of the total figure of £25,500,000. We are anxious that this £7,000,000 calf subsidy—I assume that it will run at much the same total for the next year—will be directed to getting at what is the real purpose of the calf subsidy—that is, to getting more cattle

reared that will be suitable for beef production. It is nice, of course, for the dairy farmer to get something on dairy heifers, but that is not the real purpose of this calf rearing subsidy. We are anxious that this £7,000,000 should be directed in such a way as to increase beef production, and to the rearing in particular of more store cattle that will make reasonable beef animals. Could the Minister tell us in a word or two the tenor of the new directions that have been given to the certifying officers?

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Dye: I should like to put one or two questions to the Minister. I recognise that there has been this alteration in the calf subsidy by raising the amount paid for steer calves and reducing the amount paid for heifer calves. In conversation with dairy farmers I find that quite a number are not claiming the subsidy for their heifer calves, so that they, as farmers, question the need for a subsidy for the heifer calves for rearing their dairy herds. The fact that they are not claiming the subsidy indicates that they can quite successfully rear their heifers for the herds without even the £2 a head.
We know that the purpose of the subsidy for steer calves is to increase the number of steer calves that are reared so that we shall have a greater quantity of beef for the country. In so far as the subsidy increases the number reared to a year old, it is obviously meeting a national need, but could we not use this system for bringing about a further improvement? It has been found beyond doubt that polled steer or de-horned steer do better than horned steer when they have to be yarded together, particularly during the winter.
Why could not this certification of the calves for subsidy include a condition that the farmers should de-horn them? I have seen some dairy herds, Ayrshires for instance, which have been de-horned when they have become adult calves. With certain systems of milking, with the modem milking parlour, it is necessary; it is utterly impossible to work with cows with long and sharp horns. Therefore a major operation has to take place, the veterinary surgeon has to be called in, and off come the horns with the saw or the guillotine.
If we could have a painless and quick system of de-horning the calf before it is eight or ten days' old we could achieve two purposes. First we would increase the number, and second we would encourage the fanner to go in for de-horning calves painlessly. The result would be improved heifers for the dairy, and also steer calves for fattening on for beef. I made this suggestion in an earlier Debate on this subject, but on that occasion I did not get a reply from the Minister. This is a matter of vital interest to the whole future of the cattle side of farming in this country, and I should like to know whether this condition could be included in the certification of calves.

10.9 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I hope the Minister will be able to tell us how many calves he thinks he has saved by the subsidy since it was started a couple of years ago, because when this proposal was originally put forward, some of us suggested that it would be very expensive indeed for the extra number of calves which were to be saved for making into beef subsequently. Some of us think that it is quite unnecessary to pay a subsidy on heifer cows because a large number of these will be reared in any case. Obviously, most farmers do not refuse subsidies when offered to them, and they would be unwise to do so. At the same time, a very large number of heifer cows are reared whether there are subsidies or not.
I should like to see this subsidy used entirely for increasing the number of store calves, because I think that would serve the Minister very much better. We believe that £7 million a year is spent in this way. How much of that goes in actual calf subsidy and how much goes on giving the subsidy? It must be possible to estimate that, and I should like to know the comparative cost of the actual subsidy and the cost of imposing it the whole way through the Ministry.

10.11p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I am sure that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) would not expect me to answer in detail just how the standard of calves has been

raised. It is a technical matter with which only my livestock officers can deal. I can assure him, however, that the standard has been raised. Lectures have been given by my livestock officers at conferences, and I understand that there is a pronounced change throughout the country. With regard to de-horning, I should like to see every animal in the country de-horned. I do not exclude Ayrshires or anything else. I think that it would be for the good of the animal, for the good of milk production and for the good of food production. There must be an enormous amount of damage caused by unnecessary horns.
I do not think that this is the right moment for any form of compulsion with regard to the calf subsidy scheme. What we want is more beef. Anything that we may do to discourage the possibility of calves being reared for beef would militate against the national interest. I believe in my hon. Friend's general thesis that calves ought to be de-horned for their own safety and that of their owners, but I am certain that this is not the time to do it. In any case it does not happen to be in the Order, so whatever my personal sympathies may be I am afraid that it cannot be done.
In reply to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow), the increase in the number of calves today under one year Old compared with two years ago, is 415,000. Therefore, I think that the subsidy provided the right inducement, and in a year or eighteen months' time there will be much more British beef for the British housewife than there would have been without this calf subsidy.

Sir J. Barlow: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the relative cost?

Mr. Williams: I cannot give the hon. Member a figure that would satisfy me. I have not the expenses of certification and general administration in my mind.

Resolved:
That the Draft Calf Rearing Scheme (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) (Extension and Payment) Order, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.

HORNCHURCH (BOROUGH STATUS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Adams.]

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Bing: I want to ask my hon. Friend tonight to end an anomaly which primarily affects the urban districts of Harrow, Enfield and my own constituency of Hornchurch. I want to ask him to facilitate applications for non-county borough status under the Local Government Act, 1933, for all urban districts which desire it and have a population exceeding 100,000. In England and Wales there are four such authorities—Harrow, Enfield, Hornchurch and Rhondda, which I understand does not desire to apply for non-county borough status.
My proposal would only affect three out of the 572 urban districts in the country, although all urban districts will be indirectly affected, because at the moment it is the existence of the giants among urban districts—Harrow is larger than any other non-county borough and has a population of nearly 250,000—which prevents such things as real competition between urban districts as to who is to be top of the housing lists. Such organisations as the Urban District Councils Association are made far less effective, because the smaller organisations cannot help but be overshadowed by the great ones.
For example, the average rateable value for all urban districts is £90,000, whereas the rateable value of Harrow is £2,125,000. The average population of urban districts is 14,000, and even in Hornchurch, which is the smallest of the three, there is a population of over 102,000. Probably the long-term solution is to give back to urban districts their right to apply for non-county borough status when they have reached, say, the old limit of a population of 40,000. Since the average population of non-county boroughs is still only round about 30,000, that is not an unreasonable suggestion. I am not putting that forward tonight, because I do not want to argue about the standstill policy of the Government in regard to applications for charters. All I want to do is to show that these three urban districts are within the general Government policy.
That policy was put forward by the Lord President of the Council on 11th July. He said then that any urban district was at perfect liberty to petition the Privy Council for a charter, but added:
I cannot hold out any hope that His Majesty would be advised to grant a charter, save in very exceptional circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1949; Vol. 467, c. 22.]
In the case of the three urban districts I have mentioned, there are very remarkable circumstances. Unless by saying "very remarkable circumstances" the Lord President means no circumstances at all, these three urban districts are entitled to borough status. I hope my hon. Friend will set out clearly, for the guidance of local authorities, precisely what are the qualifications required by the Lord President.
If the House will excuse me for a moment, I will deal with the particular points which affect Hornchurch. Horn-church's claim is by no means based only on size, although a population of over 100,000 is obviously a very exceptional circumstance in regard to an urban district; it is the highest figure anyone at any time has suggested should be the qualification for a county borough. It is clearly most exceptional to have an urban district with over three times the population of the average non-county borough, with a population which exceeds almost all non-county boroughs, 14 out of the 61 administrative counties and 37 out of the 83 county boroughs. Hornchurch produces £3,250 for a penny rate, whereas the average urban district produces only £355. Here is the first exceptional circumstance.
The second very exceptional circumstance is that Hornchurch is the greater part of the only Liberty, which survived late into the 19th century and which is now not either an administrative county, a county borough or a non-county borough. Hornchurch was the capital and principal place of the old Royal Liberty of Havering, and still consists of the greater part of it in size. It is a sad thing to think that Havering, which was once as well-known as Westminster as a residence of English Kings, is now so forgotten that when a balloon carrying a man descended prematurely on the site of Edward the Confessor's Palace even its name was mis-pronounced by the B.B.C. The Old Liberty had its own quarter sessions and


own county government down to 1888, and I am asking my hon. Friend to assist not so much in the granting of a new charter as in the restoration of one of the oldest corporations in this country.
In Webb's "History of Local Government" Havering is singled out as being unique in having no fewer than nine charters all of them, although contradictory, in force at the same time. Naturally, it is too late to invite the Government to undo all the results of the Norman Conquest. Except for that unhappy event, Hornchurch would have got government status equal to that of Windsor. It would have been a Royal Borough. Like Westminster Abbey, Hornchurch Church was founded by Edward the Confessor and Harold Wood, the northerly ward of the constituency, was so called because it was the hunting ground of Earl Harold, the last of the Saxon kings. Right through Saxon times until its present development Hornchurch has never had a big population, but it was renowned for its corporate spirit. For instance, early in the last century it produced, out of a population of some 3,000 or 4,000, one of the best cricketing sides in England. In 1830, the Hornchurch cricket team, all of them composed of local men, defeated an all-Essex team, playing on the ground at Woodford.

Mr. Skinnard: By how many wickets?

Mr. Bing: By a considerable number of wickets. Even in that constituency there can be remarkably surprising results of contests. The Hornchurch team used to play the M.C.C. regularly, and those who have read "Rodney Stone" will remember the fight between Mendoza and Jackson which took place in Hornchurch. It is only fair to say of Harrow that probably the Battle of Waterloo would have been won on the Harrow playing fields had it not been that that unfortunate school, situated in that urban district, had expelled the brother of the Duke of Wellington.
However, modern wars are not won on playing fields. It was from the Hornchurch aerodrome that a great part of the Battle of Britain was fought. It is so long since we have had any fighting on British soil that it is sometimes forgotten that, in the past, towns received their charters of incorporation very

often as a reward for services in war. The last case was that of Newark, in 1660. If war service is still to be considered one of the things to be counted in granting a charter, Hornchurch was an aerodrome, situated on the Thames, which was one of the enemy targets. As the town also suffered 28,000 "incidents" which caused damage to dwelling-houses, Hornchurch is at least entitled to consideration on that ground.
Finally, perhaps the most important exceptional circumstance is that the grant of borough powers is in the case of Hornchurch absolutely essential to that sense of community of which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health spoke so feelingly when discussing the Local Government Bill. In the late 19th century a change came over Hornchurch, which was remarkably foreshadowed by the "Daily Telegraph." They wrote in October, 1883:
Hornchurch is still one of the quaintest towns one could wish to see, with its two straggling streets, its church bearing the insignia of its name, its gabled houses placed anywhere and everywhere the owners pleased, supremely indifferent to architectural continuity, and its general disregard for the amenities of locomotion. Those who wish to see it as it is, and as it has been for centuries, must visit it soon, for yesterday there was cut at Upminster the first turf of a railway which will bring the place within half an hour of London, and open up a new field for the speculative contractor.
The "Daily Telegraph" rather over-estimated the speed of the train, but not of the contractor.
Hornchurch has, since that date, absorbed people from all other parts of Britain. The population has almost doubled since 1934, and something is needed to give the newcomers, who are the great majority of the population, the feeling that they are not living in a dormitory suburb but that they have a part in an ancient and distinguished town. There is no question that Hornchurch is not a proper administrative unit. At the local government review of 1934 the neighbouring boroughs and the county all wanted to lop off parts of the district, but after hearing all the evidence the Ministry of Health decided not only that this town should not be diminished but that its size should be increased. It thus contains not only Hornchurch but the ancient Norman village of Rainham-Upminster, which like Hornchurch originally was part of the property of the Saxon Kings, and Cran-


ham where lived and died General Oglethorpe, the founder of Georgia. When one meets American visitors from Georgia they never can understand how their founder has still no home town. General Oglethorpe was the only man who both founded an American State and lived to see it independent.
Hornchurch was the home of Thomas Witherings, who died there in 1651, of whom Bennett in his "History of the Post Office" said, speaking of those who made the British Post Office,
First of all in time and distinction was Witherings … he made the Post Office a paying concern. He created the Post Office as we know it today.
Yet the Post Office thinks so little of the home of this most distinguished figure that half the constituency is given the postal designation of "Romford." Horn-church is already a Parliamentary borough. It has all the municipal machinery necessary for a non-county borough.
Let me give just one test of efficiency which will appeal to my hon. Friend who is going to reply. Hornchurch has been for a number of years top of the urban districts in the number of houses it has built, even beating Harrow with twice the population. In the latest figures issued by the Ministry, Hornchurch is top. not only of that league, but of the other league, top of all the non-county boroughs as well, and for that reason alone it is entitled to move into the next division. I shall not take any more time for hon. Members from other urban districts wish to speak, but I hope my hon. Friend will consider the matter with some seriousness.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Norman Bower: I do not wish to switch the limelight from Hornchurch, but I can support the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) in the eloquent and enterprising plea he made on behalf of his constituency. However, I want to say a word or two on behalf of Harrow, which I represent together with the hon. Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard). If possessing a famous cricket team is a reason for granting borough status, then Harrow has for many years provided a team which has played cricket at Lord's, the headquarters of cricket, a

thing I believe Hornchurch has never done.
Harrow is by far the largest urban district in the country. Its population is very nearly 220,000. Before the war there was a move to secure borough status, but at that time there was a considerable divergence of opinion in the area as to whether borough status was desirable or not. As a result those who opposed it organised a petition against it, effectively preventing, anything from being done. Since then there has been a complete change of heart on the part of most of those who organised the petition and I think it is safe to say that today a large majority of the people in the area are in favour of borough status being accorded. It certainly seems anomalous and undignified that a place of the size, importance and population of Harrow should still only be an urban district. Therefore, if anything is going to be done in this direction, I hope that the claims of Harrow will not be overlooked.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Skinnard: I shall be short because I feel that the claims of Enfield, though admirably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), should more properly be voiced by the burgess of Enfield—I believe burgess is not the correct term to use, though I hope he may have that title as a result of this Debate. I should like to reinforce the general plea. A halt has been called to incorporation. One of the most precious heritages of the people of this country is civic pride, some of the ancient roots of which have been indicated by the hon. Member for Hornchurch.
Harrow has never had pretensions to be a borough at any time in the remote past, though its claims to be one now are incontrovertible, I think. There is always a falling away if there is any feeling of frustration, and what the hon. Member for Hornchurch did not fully bring out is the way in which the people of an urban district tend to fall behind their neighbours who are citizens of a newly-created borough. In Harrow we suffer from the proximity of Wembley, which got in first when we had rather unfortunate second thoughts. If only secondary education had been as advanced then as it is now,


I believe that Harrow would have enjoyed borough status since some years before the war.
If there is any point in the argument adduced by the hon. Member for Horn-church for his own area, I think that Harrow can claim at least an equality. It is strange that there should be some affinity between the two areas. We in Harrow claim to breed the finest Essex pigs in the world, having taken that role no doubt from the old area of Harrwy. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some hope of incorporation.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) for bracketing the case of Enfield with that of his own constituency and Harrow. The luck of the ballot has enabled him to do so. My hon. Friend who is to reply will remember that in the Debate on the Bill for the dissolution of the Boundary Commission, I raised this matter, but unfortunately his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health did not deign to refer in his reply to this question of raising the status of urban districts to that of non-county boroughs. My hon. Friend has had nearly 15 minutes in which to sing the praises of Hornchurch and tell us the interesting historic events that took place there, in his own inimitable manner. I cannot vie with him in singing the praises of Enfield in two minutes, but even in Enfield there are royal associations. Queen Elizabeth slept there.

Mr. Bing: Not a unique privilege!

Mr. Davies: We had a royal hunting ground, and Henry VIII hunted there. I do not know whether he hunted the same objects as King Harold did in Hornchurch. I want to plead with my right hon. Friend that in changing the status of urban districts to that of non-county boroughs, there is, in effect, no change of functions and there is not necessarily any change of area. In the case of Enfield, to facilitate the granting of a petition to be presented would simply mean that the area would remain the same, the boundaries would not be altered, and the functions of the local authority would not, in effect, be changed. Therefore I cannot see that the argument put forward by his right hon. Friend, that it would be undesirable to change the status of

urban districts at this time when the whole reform of local government is contemplated, is valid.
I cannot see why the citizens of Enfield, who have been striving to obtain borough status for the last 13 years, should now be deprived of this possibility because in some distant future we are to have a complete reform of local government. I ask my hon. Friend not to deprive any longer the citizens of Enfield of the civic dignity they seek and which they rightly deserve. Enfield is a town of 110,000. It compares, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, very favourably in rateable value and population with a large number of non-county boroughs and even county boroughs and counties. I beg him to consult with his right hon. Friend and to consider whether a change cannot be made in their policy at present and an exception made in the exceptional circumstances to which the Lord President referred.

10.37 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): We were much delighted by the way in which the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) raised this subject and, indeed, with the way other hon. Members have given to it their general support, although thinking of their own particular constituencies, which was natural. We have all been very much delighted by the interesting historical survey which we have heard. We are only sorry that we have not been able to hear some more detailed excerpts of this kind.
The case which has been put forward is, of course, only an example of the many anomalies in regard to local government status and boundaries which we have to face in this field. It has been our general argument that it would be far better if we could deal comprehensively with the whole problem of local government status and boundaries rather than take out these individual instances and deal with them separately. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hornchurch pointed out that reference had been made to exceptional circumstances in which we might possibly be able to give consideration either to a change of status or to a change of boundaries.
I would remind him that in introducing the Local Government Boundary Com-


mission (Dissolution) Bill into this House, a short while ago, I pointed out that it was the desire of the Government to. avoid any changes, either in status or boundaries, while general consideration was being given to this whole problem, but that we would be prepared to make exceptions where it was clear that without some minor changes some of the great services which are provided, for example housing, would be seriously held up and prevented from developing normally. That exception, of course, stands.
But I think we must say that in the cases which have been put this evening, although we appreciate to the full the very strong case which has been put forward, we cannot really suggest—and I do not really think my hon. Friend puts this forward—that the change for which he is asking is essential so that necessary services shall be carried on, so that housing shall be developed, or for other reasons of that nature. Indeed, my hon. Friend is saying that we should carry out this change because it is a modest change which does not affect seriously the powers of the local authority. He is making that claim very properly on the ground of general status, but I feel that this is not one of the exceptional cases which we would be prepared to consider at this time.
I put this further point to him and to other of my hon. Friends who are interested in this matter. It is quite clear that if changes of this nature were to be made and if then, within I hope not too long a period, the proposals of the Government were to be made known for a general reform of local government and its boundaries, it might well mean a further reconsideration of the position. That would be most unfortunate. I plead with my hon. Friend who has raised this matter tonight and with those who have taken part in the subsequent Debate, to put it to their local authorities, and others concerned, that we must ask them for a

little more patience in this matter, although I am fully aware of the very long time this matter has been before them and the patience they have already shown. It is our view that this would be the wrong way of tackling this matter at the present time. Let us deal with the matter in a full and comprehensive manner and then we shall be sure that the claim made by my hon. Friend and by others will be given full and proper consideration.

Mr. Bing: I do not quite follow my hon. Friend on this point. There is no real change of status; a great many alterations of ward boundaries and so on are necessary to make it possible to administer the area. But how can he say that this prejudices any subsequent change? There is no change from a one-tier to a two-tier government; and furthermore, may I ask him how long are we to wait?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I do not think my hon. Friend really expects me tonight to be able to give him any time-table; and I do not say it prejudices the changes that may be under consideration. I am merely saying that obviously it would be undesirable to approve a change today and then possibly within a comparatively short period to make another change. We think it more desirable to deal with the whole of this question of local government boundaries and status together and to be able to present to the House some comprehensive programme.

Mr. Skinnard: Is the Minister indicating that there is somewhere at the back of his mind an idea that even these units which we have been discussing are not big enough, and that we might be merged into something much bigger than the urban district we have been discussing?

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.